Last saved by: Elsayed Ahmed

1.  Who are Rachel Laudan and Jayeeta Sharma?  What are their research backgrounds and what other works have they written?
Rachel Laudan is a historian of food, science, and technology, as well as a writer best known for her two most recent books, Cuisine & Empire: Cooking in World History and The Food of Paradise: Exploring Hawaii’s Culinary Heritage. She has written four lesser known works about the history and philosophy of science, along with a plethora of articles and reviews concerning both food and science history, such as “Birth of the Modern Diet” and “Cognitive Change in Technology and Science.”(https://utexas.academia.edu/RachelLaudan) As of 2013 she was also a coeditor of The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science.(Back cover of Cuisine & Empire) According to Laudan’s personal website, while she is currently a Senior Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin working on a project about ownership and inheritance of land, prior to her time in the states she has spent extensive time living on five different continents pursuing her interest in food culture.( https://www.rachellaudan.com/)
Jayeeta Sharma is an Associate Professor of History at the University of Toronto with areas of interest in migration, labor, family, gender, food, cultural circulation, and post-colonial spaces. Obtaining her B.A., M.A., and M.Phil from the University of Delhi, she received her Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge and released her book Empire’s Garden: Assam and the Making of India in 2011. Along with this publication, Sharma is an editor for the journal Radical History Review, for Global Food History, and for the book series Empires in Perspective. Her current research project is focused on society and culture in the Himalayas. (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?
Clearly both Laudan and Sharma indicate that the role of food in imperialism, and in world history as a whole, is very complex and nuanced, making this a bit of a difficult topic to concisely argue. Nonetheless, I shall push forth. Laudan’s overall thesis for Cuisine & Empire argues that cuisines tend to expand and contract with empires, with the most widely consumed cuisines being those of the largest and most powerful political units. Furthermore, cuisines of successful empires have been co-opted by conquerors and “adopted and adapted far beyond imperial boundaries.”(5) The creation of new cuisines was not done simply by adopting and adapting those of other empires however, but followed with the adoption of new culinary philosophies. Thus, Laudan argues that culinary history has a discernible pattern, and is not simply random.(6) Throughout Cuisine & Empire, Laudan discusses the role of politics, religion, and criticism in pushing societies to the tipping point where a new cuisine and culinary philosophy are created, examining how the various high, humble, and middling cuisines shape and are shaped by the empires in which they reside. While Laudan’s work extends beyond exclusively talking about imperialism, her overall arguments apply to imperial regimes as well. Laudan argues that imperialism is crucial to the production, circulation, and consumption of food, as foods from the exterior of the empire will be brought into the interior and vice versa through conquest and settlement. Furthermore, cuisine in imperial regimes can be analyzed to examine its role as a social status indicator, and the industrialization of food processing increased accessibility and made foods that were once luxury goods available to humble citizens, which heavily contributed to the creation of modern, “middling” cuisine. Finally, Laudan argues that food plays a central role in the expansion and destabilization of empires, as food sources and their production, alteration, and dissemination are key factors in the successes and failures of imperialism. In terms of primary sources, Laudan utilizes a variety of historical documents, including personal memoirs, historic cookbooks, archaeological evidence, and primary articles and documents discussing cuisine, ailments, etc. Her analysis of these sources along with her use of secondary material to support her arguments makes her stance on culinary history in general, and the role of cuisine in imperialism very compelling in my opinion.
Sharma argues in “Food and Empire” that foods obtained from colonial settlements played an important role in British society acting as markers of social status and conquest, reflecting political and economic status through conspicuous consumption. As also argued by Laudan, Sharma argues that imperialism played a key role in changing the dietary practices and food availability for those on the exterior and interior of the empire as food were introduced to both and became staples of “local” cuisine.(242-245) Then, tropical luxury foods from the exterior of the empire, through the process of industrialization, would become cheaper, and thus more accessible to humble masses. The canning industry, production of biscuits, and advancements in refrigeration all played a key role in providing more reliable supplies of meat, fruit and bread to citizens in the empire, and played a key role in European and American domination of the culinary world.(247-250) Sharma states that the aftermath of imperialism is still being felt in formerly colonized areas and around the world. Places such as Africa, Latin America, and India face increased hunger and reliance on former imperial powers, while the certain foods have made their way around the world accompanied by laborers forced to travel to escape these conditions. Lastly, Sharma states that imperialism is the defining factor that has shaped our modern culinary philosophy and the dissemination and production of food, creating a complex and worldwide system of food circulation and consumption.(251-254) Some insights we can glean from Sharma’s and Laudan’s work include that imperialism still affects the culinary philosophy and circulation of food worldwide in the present. The systems that they describe are a great addition to post-colonial studies that many may not have studied, and provide crucial information that supports the world systems approach to world history. Further, Sharma and Laudan both illustrate that the food and ingredients in themselves have imperial connotations and symbolism that must be studied to understand imperial societies more fully.
 
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.
The production, circulation, and consumption of food was crucial to the fortification of regimes because of the impact that cuisine and accessibility of food items had on citizens and governments. According to Laudan and Sharma, success in these areas generally allowed the fortification and expansion of the empire and the dissemination of the high cuisine associated with it and exotic foods from colonial settlements, while failure to secure food and reduction of food sources in colonial settlements resulted in destabilization. One example from Laudan’s work about how food fortified regimes regards the British naval forces. Laudan states that by the end of the eighteenth century, the diet of British seamen was crucial to their dominance over France and the Dutch. Due to the production, dissemination, and consumption of primarily hard wheat flour biscuits, salted beef and pork, beer, and citrus, Britain’s sailors were able to stay healthier at sea, and thus stay at sea up to six times longer than they could in 1700, giving them a strong advantage over other imperial powers.(241-242) In terms of destabilization, Laudan describes the deterioration of humble diets and lack of basic food staples in France that preceded the French Revolution.(222-224) But it is Sharma in my opinion who provides the more interesting examples of destabilization caused by food production, circulation, and consumption. While she does not address these issues prior to the fall of imperial powers, it is implied that they do indeed factor into the fall of imperial regimes. Speaking of the human and economic costs of imperialism, Sharma highlights the deindustrialization of India and the creation of a cash crop economy in Senegal, both of which reduced the self-sustainability of these countries, reduced subsistence crops, and increased dependence on imperial powers and world commodity prices. This destabilization of colonial settlements, along with the increased dependence on commodities and foodstuffs from outside of the heart of these empires indicates that dependence and lack of self-sustainability from both exterior and interior contributed to the destabilization of the imperial regimes of Britain and France.
 
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?
When Laudan states that food and cooking served as symbols of social status and political relations, she means beyond food’s social status implications via price and conspicuous consumption, that food and ingredients themselves were given symbolic meanings based on the empire and time period in which they were used, and this symbolic meaning defined when they were used, what they were used for, and how they were viewed. Laudan provides the example of salt symbolizing “permanence and incorruptibility” in Sumeria, thus salt was used to seal agreements and ensure loyalty.(44) Another example is Sufi imagery associated with soup, pastries, and meat, which symbolized the importance of water, fire’s ability to transform and perfect, and earth’s life sustaining properties respectively.(153) Perhaps one of the most well-known examples of this would be the symbolic meaning of bread and wine in Christianity, with the grains baked in a loaf of bread seen as a metaphor for Christians being united in the body of Christ, and wine symbolically being his blood, both ingested to metaphorically bind Christ to Christians.(168) One last example of this is the meanings associated with beef following the transition to modern Western cuisine, being described as the food of virility, good sense and exacting taste, and food from animals in general were seen as imbuing vigorousness, intelligence, and morality.(256) In my opinion, Sharma would agree with Laudan that food and cooking helped define social status in colonial regimes due to the fact that she discusses the conspicuous consumption and social status implications of ingredients and food. Sharma notes that spices from the East, sugar, and tea, to name a few, were all viewed as elite, luxury food items, and were all openly consumed by nobles as displays of status and power.(242-244) And while Sharma does not touch on the symbolism associated with foods outside of their use as status symbols, it seems as if her and Laudan are on similar paths of thinking in terms of this subject, so I would be inclined to believe she would agree that the foods and ingredients themselves would be imbued with symbolic meaning based on the time period and place in which they’re being used.
 
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.
Laudan states that criticism of culinary philosophy has always been present, but it’s when this criticism reaches a critical point that new cuisines emerge, and are constructed from elements of the old.(1) Thus, critics and counter cuisines play a key role in the evolution of culinary philosophy and practice over time. When shifting from high and humble cuisine to modern, “middling” cuisine, elements of the old traditional Catholic cuisine were replaced by modern Western cuisine and a new philosophy based on nutrition. This came about due to the split within the Catholic church, the rise of Protestantism, and shifts from monarchism to republicanism, and the shift to a nutrition based food philosophy. The criticisms that came with these shifts had been present throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries prior to the slow transition to modern cuisine across Europe, but had not been enough to reach the critical point of transition.(208-210) This is the case with the other major shifts in culinary philosophy and practice Laudan discusses as well, as criticism build across the societal spectrum of politics, religion, and philosophy, a new cuisine emerges out of the old.
 
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?
While Laudan explicitly discusses the role of gender in the relationships between cooking and the kitchen, her discussions of gender’s role in colonial spaces is much more implicit. Her two primary points concerning this seem to be that gender played a key role in the sexualization and exoticization of native humble cuisine, and how gender in colonized places reinforced differences between European and native cuisine and culture. Examining the first point, early in the book Laudan describes the sexualization of Mexican women grinding ingredients. She states that while this act was extremely difficult and arduous, it was seen as demeaning, sexual, and submissive to those who witnessed it.(32) She also states later that cooking maize was women’s work although it was much tougher than the men’s job, and that the quern was considered the symbol of womanhood.(95) This would indicate that native women’s preparation of food, and thus their humble cuisine, would be seen as exotic and sexual by colonizers in colonized places. However, when these foods and ingredients were brought back to Europe, while they were advertised to the upper class with this same imagery, exotic and tantalizing, they were changed to high cuisine due to price and with the help of upper class citizens. Women played a key role on both sides of this exchange, being the main producers and objects of sexualization in colonial settlements, while being consumers and advertisers for these exotic wares back in Europe. Men played a role in obtaining and bringing these ingredients to Europe, and exotic foreign items such as pineapple and coffee took on a distinctly masculine air as they were seen as symbols of imperial power and status. Concerning the second point, when women were brought to colonial settlements to live, they drastically changed the nature of colonial relations concerning cuisine. Laudan states that rather than promoting native foods and ingredients as they did in Europe, these women played a role in reinforcing differences between high and humble cuisine in the colonial setting. While men previously accepted local high cuisine, European women promoted the separation of European high cuisine and local cuisine, distinguishing the former as civilized, clean, and prestigious, and the latter as the opposite.(259-260) Women played a central role in reversing the blurring of the lines between cuisines in colonial settlements themselves.
Sharma explicitly discusses the masculine and feminine associations of coffee and tea respectively in British society, as well as the exotic nature of ingredients and food that came from parts of Britain’s imperial empire, supporting Laudan’s arguments about the gendering of ingredients and how this played a role in European society.(242-244) Further, she discusses women’s role in the harvesting and processing of raw ingredients in colonial settlements, namely the work of Asian women in the harvesting and canning of pineapple.(247) However, she does not touch on the relations concerning actual colonizers and colonized peoples, more so emphasizing the gendered nature of food and ingredient production. Despite this, it feels as if Sharma and Laudan have similar views about the importance of gender in the production and dissemination of imperial cuisine.
 
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?
Laudan states that the “religions of salvation,” which included Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity, primarily altered imperial high cuisine by replacing the sacrificial feast. The cuisines of these religions had great impact largely because states would determine the religion of their citizens, and thus the foods they ate. Replacing the sacrificial meal were two types of cuisine in places where state sponsored religions, primarily the three mentioned above, took hold. In courts and palaces, theocratic cuisine consisted of banquets with “sauced meat dishes and alcoholic beverages” to showcase the power and strength of the monarch and nobles. In temples and monasteries ascetic cuisine was designed to show self-discipline and enhance intelligence and spirituality, while these places were also seen as places of culinary innovation.(102-103) Foods that marked high social status changed as a result of this transition, with the rise in foods such as meat substitutes and sweetened fruit and nut drinks. As religious figures gained social status, notably Buddhist monks and Catholic nuns, foods associated with monasteries and temples rose to the level of elite status and elite foods were associated not only with political power, but also with being enlightened.(104) This transition from the sacrificial meal to the theocratic philosophy that came about with the rise of religions of salvation marked a large shift in food culture, the places and people associated with high cuisine, and the foods considered indicators of elite social status.
 
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?
The causes of the advent of “middling” cuisine, or cuisine that bridged the gap between high and low cuisines, were shifts in political, religious, and dietary thought. In regard to politics, republicanism and liberalism were both proposed as alternatives to monarchism and inherited power, as people increasingly rejected the idea that rulers were legitimate due to hereditary or divine right. Concerning religion, across Europe Protestantism was on the rise as Catholicism faced increased criticism and conflict, and slowly countries such as France, the Netherlands, and Germany rejected key elements of theocratic cuisine, such as routine fasting and ceremonial mass. Finally, chemists and natural philosophers proposed a new theory about nutrition and digestion based on fermentation and three principles to replace the previous theory based around hot and cold foods and the four humors.(209-211) However, it wasn’t until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and the industrialization of food that middling cuisine took hold. One of the immediate effects of this was a change in preferred diet, with carbohydrates, beef, and fats and sugars being considered the key to a healthful life. Also, middling cuisine facilitated the rapid growth of two new social groups, the salaried middle classes and the wage-earning working classes. Finally, while Laudan states that middling cuisine had more in common with high cuisine than humble, it did not having social statuses of hierarchical political and religious power associated with it.(248-249) Sharma does speak in part to this argument, discussing the creation and dissemination of “agro-industrial foods” and the change in culinary philosophy that promoted the bread and beef diet of middling cuisine.(246-248) However, Sharma focuses heavily on imperialism’s role in long distance trade and the processing of food, while Laudan puts much emphasis on discussing middle class lifestyle and nutritional values of middling cuisine. Thus while they both touch on the same subjects and arguments, Sharma’s focus seems to be on how existing structures facilitated the rise of middling cuisine, while Laudan’s focus seems to be on the elements of middling cuisine and how these impacted worldwide food culture.
 
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?
In terms of themes, Laudan, Sharma, and Jurafsky all illustrate the power of cuisine to break down ethnic and class barriers. Jurafsky’s The Language of Food went heavy on promoting the peaceful cross-cultural capabilities of food, while Laudan and Sharma both acknowledge the ability of cuisine to breakdown and reinforce these barriers. Particularly in regard to imperialism, Jurafsky does little to address the negative or forceful side of colonization efforts, while Sharma and Laudan acknowledge and examine both the positive and negative aspects of colonialism on cuisine. Aside from this point however, in my opinion these three share little else in common, with Laudan’s and Sharma’s work being much more similar to each other than they are to Jurafsky’s. Cuisine & Empire and “Food and Empire” both take a much more historical, analytical approach than Jurafsky. Sharma’s work is primarily based on secondary sources while Laudan’s work has a good balance of both primary and secondary as a fully realized book, but both focus heavily on the changing nature of food culture over time, how imperialism changed cuisine, and how industrialization and the “nutrition transition” affected the ideology and production of food globally. The strengths of Jurafsky’s book are his linguistic analysis and his casual prose, while Laudan and Sharma both have a strong historical chronology, understanding of secondary literature, and both have strong analytical skills. Jurafsky utilizes historical documents to illustrate his point, but doesn’t show nearly as much competence in analyzing these documents as Laudan does, although both do make use of pieces of historical fiction or folklore. Of course Laudan’s Cuisine and Empire is much more detailed and provides much more analysis than Sharma, but this appears to simply be because Laudan has realized her arguments over the course of a book, and Sharma’s article is only 15 pages long. Otherwise, the differences between Jurafsky’s work and Laudan and Sharma’s are almost night and day.
Examining these works together broadens our perspective of the role of food history by showing readers how many different ways one can evaluate food history. Sharma illustrated that there is plenty of secondary source material to analyze, Laudan provides a very detailed examination of cuisine and civilization over time, and Jurafsky gives readers a very relaxed history that brings in linguistics. All three of these approaches bring something different to the field while having some similarities in terms of theme, and all three prove to me personally that culinary history is a unique and vast discipline that expands upon traditional histories in meaningful new ways.
 
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.
Three things I’ve learned that surprised me are about the drastic changes in food culture that came with industrialization, the argument for and against “organic” food, and the role of religions. As a historian, I am aware of the extreme changes within society that came with industrialization, however I had never thought about this in depth in connection with food processing and changing food culture. To be honest the most that I had probably thought about this topic was in connection with The Jungle and most definitely not on a global scale. The impact of industrialization and the innovations of things such as refrigeration and transportation on a global level were particularly interesting and things I was surprised to find I had never really thought about before. Another element of the reading that I was surprised to learn about was concerning the arguments for and against “organic” food in the present. With little knowledge about food history, I was simply of the mindset that organic food was better for you while processed food was worse, thinking little about the increased availability of processed food due to industrialization and the arguments for it. This was extremely enlightening. Finally, while I was aware in a very broad sense of the impact of religions, but mostly Christianity, on world history, this did not encompass their role in food dissemination. In particular I found the discussion about Buddhist monks’ and Catholic nuns’ roles in food production and promotion to be very interesting, as this gave these groups power that they arguably would not have gotten without the foods associated with them and their spread.
One question I had about the reading was about Scandinavia. It felt as if Laudan tried to be even handed in terms of dealing with as many places globally as she could. However I found the book to be lacking in discussions of Vikings and Scandinavia, thus I wonder how Scandinavian food culture changed as the Vikings ventured and/or took over places such as what is now Russia, the U.K, and the Middle East, or how these places were changed because of their presence. Another question I had while reading is perhaps impossible to truly answer, but it concerned the lascar seamen Sharma discussed who opened restaurants. She states that these men were the “makers of an emergent British Asian cuisine,” bringing curry to Britain in an altered form despite having never prepared food in their homeland because of gender roles.(252) Thus, I would like to know how this emergent cuisine fared in Britain, whether this became an entrenched part of the culture or whether it faded as immigrants came in and opened restaurants where they prepared genuine curry or other Asian dishes.
These readings have broadened my perspectives in the sense that they’ve extended in particular traditional classical and nation-state history into the realm of culinary history, illustrating how important some ingredients, such as grain and millet, are to the evolution of empires and world history. I would say Jurafsky expanded my thinking concerning present day more, while Laudan and Sharma have expanded my historical knowledge concerning the evolution of food and cuisine, intertwining it most with classical history for me personally. They’ve also examined a unique take on world history, proving that examining the flow of food and cuisine around the globe is a valid method of world history analysis, and this added onto my knowledge of the world systems approach to world history in a valuable and important way.