Lenx Chapter 5: Food PDF

5 FOOD LEARNING OBJECTIVES In this chapter, students will learn: why anthropologists are interested in food the connections between how people get their food and organize themselves socially the differences between food foragers and food producers about different types of foraging based on the resources of a given area the characteristics of food-producing societies, including horticulturalists, pastoralists, intensive agriculturalists, and industrialists the effects of globalization on food availability that diverse diets based on nutrient-rich foods can be healthy for the human body INTRODUCTION: THE MEANINGS OF FOOD When Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) opened in Beijing, China, in , it was a huge success, according to anthropologist Dr. Yungxiang Yan (). Chinese custom- ers, seeking a taste of the American fast-food experience, lined up for blocks to enjoy the clean, well-lit interiors, friendliness of the employees, and fast service. KFC became extremely popular in Beijing. Over the next ten years, with their business declining, Chinese-run chicken restaurants declared a “war of fried chickens” (p. ) against KFC, hoping to take back some of their consumers with appeals to nation- alist sentiments and use of traditional Chinese healing ingredients in the recipe. It wasn’t the chicken the consumers particularly liked about KFC, but the modern, nontraditional public space. Yan explains that inside a KFC, people of all social statuses and backgrounds can eat together, breaking from the strict hierar- chical social models that order their days. In American-style fast food restaurants, “white-collar professionals may display their new class status, youngsters may show their special taste for leisure, and parents may want to ‘modernize’ their children. Women of all ages are able to enjoy their independence when they choose to eat alone” (, p. ). American-style fast food restaurants became places where people could celebrate their individuality in public. Producing food and eating it is at the center of communal life. These acts are imbued with meaning about identity and culture, as seen in the example above. This book has touched on a few of these issues already: what is and what is not food (are insects on your dinner plate?) and the importance of hospitality (have you eaten yet?). Box . talked about the anthropological study of food as a subﬁeld of cultural anthropology. Food is of interest to cultural anthropologists for many reasons. Because all people everywhere need to eat, much of the social and cultural life that engages humans in their daily activities results from accessing, distributing, preparing, consuming, and disposing of food. Food-related activities are richly embedded in a complex system of norms and expectations, reﬂecting and reinforcing our cultural, ethnic, and individual identities in meaningful ways. Indeed, food seems to be at the center of our experience as cultural actors, so much so that people who eat foreign foods seem to be somehow essentially diﬀer- ent from us. Anthropologist Dr. Sidney Mintz () argues that “food preferences are close to the center of... self-deﬁnition” (p. ). Food is so central to culture that the English language uses the cultural model of ideas as food (“I don’t think I can stomach the notion of eating bugs, but let me digest that and get back to you”). The human species (Homo sapiens) evolved as omnivores, with ecological, economic, and cultural reasons for consuming certain foods. Many people are 98 THROUGH THE LENS OF CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY privileged to have food preferences, and many others are limited by external forces. Nutrition is essential to human health, yet people do not always eat (or have access to) healthful foods. This trend has worsened over time with the globalization of processed food items by powerful multinational companies. As you’ve seen, each chapter in this book highlights content about food and language in box features. The boxes attempt to highlight some of the many fascinating aspects of studying food from a cultural perspective. Chapter  focuses speciﬁcally on food- getting practices, such as the methods of foraging, hunting, ﬁshing, growing, and access- ing food. Since the beginning of the discipline, anthropologists have been interested in how people have solved the central problem of “What are we going to eat today?” ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES: FOOD-GETTING PRACTICES How do people get the food they need to survive? Do they grow or raise their own food, forage for it in the local area, or purchase it at the grocery store? Although this chapter focuses on the ways people utilize their environments, each of these practices is embedded in a unique and deeply held set of meanings for the people involved. The ways people get their food dictate expectations of one another, interac- tions with the environment, modes of cooperation and competition, daily schedules, and the divisions of labor among genders. Each of the diﬀerent food-getting strategies talked about in this chapter lays the foundation for a very diﬀerent type of society. Anthropologists divide the many types of food-getting strategies into general categories. The largest division is between food foragers (those who ﬁnd food) and food producers (those who grow food). Within this broad division, procurement strategies are separated into categories: foragers are in one category, while the category of food producers includes horticulturalists, pastoralists, intensive agriculturalists, and industrialists. Societies will practice one or more of these strategies. Each will be explained in detail in this chapter. When anthropologists examine diﬀerent food-getting strategies, we ﬁnd it useful to distinguish between those who use what the land produces and those who delib- erately manipulate the environment to produce food. Those who seek their food supply among available resources are called food foragers, or hunter-gatherers. Groups that farm, keep food animals for their own use, or otherwise transform the environment with the goal of food production are referred to as food producers. Depending on the means by which the food is produced, they may practice horti- cultural or agricultural techniques, engage in animal herding, and/or rely on others to produce, distribute, and make food products available. A culture’s foodways are fundamental to the structure and functioning of their society. CHAPTER 5: FOOD 99 Figure 5.1 Food-getting strategies are ﬂexible and nonexclusive. No society is locked into FORAGERS one settlement or economic pattern, and all have a dynamic relationship with their Foraging peoples represent a way of environment and with other societies with whom they come into contact. Several life that humans have strategies may be used at one time, with one generally being dominant. For instance, practiced in varying a pastoral herding society may also plant crops part of the year and trade or purchase forms since the beginning of our species. In other food items at a local store. words, we became Food procurement methods are subject to change from internal pressures and human while living external sources. These range from environmental change, invention or adoption in small cooperative foraging groups. of new technology, peaceful trade, or violent conquest. Removing local control of a Credit: Ariadne Van group’s primary food system – that is, their food sovereignty – has been an eﬀective Zandenbergen / Alamy. means of colonization and control. Furthermore, as new resources make themselves available, groups can and will become change agents. They will act on their own behalf for better economic opportunities, in whatever form those may take. Even small-scale Indigenous communities are involved in global processes of change. Their products and services are linked to not only local but also regional, national, or international economies. 100 THROUGH THE LENS OF CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY FOOD FORAGERS It is estimated that humans have spent  percent of their existence hunting and gathering for survival. Therefore, foragers not only have unique food procurement strategies, but they also demonstrate the types of social networks upon which human society is built. Even though the vast majority of humans on Earth no longer forage for a living, our basic humanness is deﬁned by the cooperation and social connec- tions between people that foraging fostered. While the lifestyles of foraging peoples share many traits, there are also major diﬀerences. The environments, gender roles, supernatural belief systems, and other features of foraging groups may be distinct. Food-getting strategies are always embedded within a set of unique cultural values, beliefs, and practices. These cultural values accompany and often override the mere quest for calories. To get a sense of some of these diﬀerences, this book examines several diﬀerent foraging lifestyles among the Hadza of Northern Tanzania, Ju/’hoansi (pronounced zhut-wasi) of the South African Kalahari Desert, and the Inuit of the Canadian Arctic. Forager Foodways Depending on the ecosystem, foragers’ daily food may consist of wild plants and animals or ﬁsh. The types of wild plants are highly variable, and certainly more than just “nuts and berries.” Land-based plant foods include a wide variety of wild fruit and vegetables, roots, seeds, tree sap, and nuts. For those groups with access to lakes, rivers, or the ocean, aquatic plants – including algae and seaweed – provide excellent nutrition. Hunting brings in local game, including small and large mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds. Foragers can also gather insects, honey, and eggs. In marine environments, foragers’ daily meals may consist of ﬁsh, marine mammals, and shellﬁsh in addition to land-based items. The menu may change seasonally. For instance, the Inuit of the Canadian Arctic hunt caribou, seal, and sea birds in the winter, and supplement with whale and a variety of ﬁsh in summer months when the ice thaws. While hunting is often portrayed in popular ﬁlms as the primary source of food, in fact gathering provides most of the group’s calories in the majority of foraging groups. Living among the Ju/’hoansi, anthropologist Dr. Richard Lee () discov- ered that the group could identify more than  diﬀerent plant foods in the desert environment of the Kalahari, which provided them with a wide range of vitamins and minerals, including fat and protein from plant sources. With up to  percent of their calories gathered from plant materials, their diet was undoubtedly more nutrient dense than most diets today. CHAPTER 5: FOOD 101 The Hadza of Northern Tanzania are one of the few remaining groups on Earth in which up to  percent of members still hunt and gather exclusively for their main food-getting strategy. Approximately , Hadza people remain in their ancestral homeland in the area of Lake Eyasi, bordering the Serengeti National Park. Hadza people primarily hunt game that comes to their water holes to drink, and forage for tubers, berries, and baobab fruit. They also trade for foodstuﬀs such as corn, millet, and beer. Like many other foraging peoples across the world, the Hadza especially prize honey as a source of energy. Why do Hadza still primarily forage? Anthropologist Dr. Frank Marlowe () argues that it is mainly due to poor ecological conditions for farming and pasto- ralism. The soil is largely unsuitable for agriculture, and infestations of the tsetse ﬂy prevent the successful herding of animals. Therefore, Hadza people continue foraging as a choice. Because they value their autonomy, they continue hunting and gathering in a relatively isolated community and choose not to work for others. Social Organization Foragers live and travel together in small groups that anthropologists call bands. These groups can vary in size based on seasons. For instance, among the Hadza, band size has varied little over the past  years, with the average around  people. During berry season, band membership can temporarily grow to  people. The Ju/’hoansi lived in bands of  to  people moving across the landscape before being settled into camps in the s. Foraging Inuit live in extended families, from a dozen to over  people, depending on the geography of the area. What are the advantages of staying in small bands? In a harsh environment where survival depends on cooperation, it is important to minimize problems and stay together. Fewer interactions cause fewer opportunities for conﬂict and division. The measure of these interpersonal conﬂicts is referred to as the social density, or the frequency and intensity of interactions among group members. Maintaining small numbers minimizes the density, making social life easier than if there had been several hundred individuals living together. Nonetheless, where there are people, there is conﬂict. An often-used solution for interpersonal conﬂict is for individual members to join another group, either temporarily or permanently. This causes the numbers in a band to ﬂuctuate occa- sionally. It also keeps the bands from breaking apart. In general, men and women’s tasks are divided by gender. Although a sexual divi- sion of labor predominates, it doesn’t mean that men are necessarily restricted from gathering or women from hunting. However, due to a woman’s role in pregnancy and childcare, along with the multitude of tasks they perform at the campsite, it is often more eﬃcient and safer for children when men hunt. Some tasks are open 102 THROUGH THE LENS OF CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY to all group members, and, among a few groups, certain hunting tasks are done by women, especially accompanied by dogs. Among the Hadza, men, women, and chil- dren gather honey, their most-prized food item. Bands have no social classes. Life in an egalitarian society means every member gets immediate rewards from foraging. Sharing the same access to resources limits status diﬀerences. In addition, being nomadic requires that each person carries their possessions on their backs as they move from camp to camp. This limits the number of belongings a person can have to what they can carry. How does everyone get approximately the same amount of resources if some families have more able-bodied members, or certain hunters are more skilled than others? Bands are cooperative societies, in which sharing is a key strategy for survival. When a group of hunters or a gathering party returns, the food is divided among members of the group. This sharing ensures that everyone eats. It also creates a social and economic bond between the people engaged in the sharing process. Once food has been shared, it must be reciprocated the next time the recipient has a surplus. Among the Ju/’hoansi, an individual member may have ten or more sharing part- ners in a network that may be called upon when needed. This reciprocity network creates a safety net in times of hardship. According to Marjorie Shostak (), when Ju/’hoansi people are angry with one another, they may call someone “stingy,” a terrible insult in a cooperative society. Bands are homogeneous societies, meaning members share culture, religion, and ethnicity. Members also share knowledge about how to ﬁnd and process food, the potential to heal others, and collective rights over the land. Because of the high level of sharing of responsibilities and experience, there is a lack of specialization in the tasks performed by individuals. All adults have some say in making decisions that aﬀect the group, as there is no formal leadership beyond the respect aﬀorded to the wise. This lack of specialization supports and maintains their egalitarian nature. Foragers and the Environment Foragers are nomadic, meaning they move frequently within a territory. The Hadza and Ju/’hoansi are examples of foragers: they move often and process food on site. In contrast, the Inuit are foragers with base camps: they bring their ﬁshing catch or other marine foodstuﬀs back to their camp for processing. Because Inuit people generally live in tundra environments, they use domesticated husky dogs (or, today, snowmobiles) to pull sleds for transportation to these sites. Each group knows its home territory well and moves over this territory annu- ally to locate seasonal foods. Each band has some historical connection to its route and some rights over it, although they do not assert that they own the land or water CHAPTER 5: FOOD 103 BOX 5.1 Talking About: “Authentic” Foods When cruise ships arrive in the Marquesas “cultural heritage” in ways that are enticing and Islands of French Polynesia, hundreds of tour- pleasant. They use these markers to promote ists gather at grand feasts in local villages, hoping products, locations, and experiences that may to experience a taste of authentic Marquesan be exoticized or caricatured. Marketing using food and life. Anthropologist Dr. Kathleen C. Riley authenticity can be found all over – from the terroir describes the visitors’ delight in watching a slow- of a wine or single-origin chocolate to an image of roasted pig being unearthed from the umu (earth a mortar and pestle on the label of a jar of salsa. oven heated with lava stones and covered with Tourists to French Polynesia want to enjoy local banana leaves). Local people prepare a feast, from food and be entertained by dancers. A feast is fish and meats to gathered roots and tree fruits, an event designed as entertainment, not a vehi- as performers drum and dance in grass skirts cle to learn about the ways in which the islands’ to the sound of ukuleles. It isn’t important that cultures, religious beliefs, and populations have “traditional” foods have been made with modern been decimated over the past 400 years. The kitchenware and with processed food products quest for authenticity usually doesn’t extend to that cater to foreign tastes (such as flour, sugar, social problems or the way that the tourists’ own and ketchup), nor that the guests are seated in countries have been involved in the history of the dining halls with tile floors. Riley argues that the islands. For tourists seeking authentic food experi- experience is successful because it is crafted to ences, the authenticity should also be palatable. capture what the visitors believe to be an authen- tic cultural experience (Riley & Paugh, 2019). In a world in which industrial food eaters have little to no knowledge of where their food comes from, the desire to experience “authenticity” drives gastrotourists (i.e., tourists in search of food experiences) to seek out encounters such as these. Foods are thought to be “authentic” when they are unique to a particular place where they have a long history, and have played a role in social and cultural life. Food practices such as these are valued as something special in this era of mass-produced and processed foods, where a Figure 5.2 Starbucks is a Starbucks, no matter if it’s in New DANCERS AT THE POLYNESIAN CULTURAL CENTER, OAHU, HAWAII York or New Delhi. The popular Polynesian Cultural Center on the island of Oahu performs island culture six nights a week at their Knowing that uniqueness captivates people, lu‘au. The Center attracts 700,000 tourists each year and governments, communities, and companies is owned by the Church of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons). work together to create and package markers of Credit: Steven Tom / CC BY ND 2.0. 104 THROUGH THE LENS OF CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY as one might ﬁnd in an industrial society. Once food resources in a given area are suﬃciently used, the group moves to the next site. The Inuit may have winter and summer base camps, moving between them twice a year as the seasons change. Until the twentieth century, foraging territory was very large. Therefore, by the time a group returned to any previous site, the food resources would be plentiful again. With all of the land available up to several hundred years ago, this was a truly sustainable way to procure food. Today, land is in short supply. This kind of forag- ing is only possible for a tiny percentage of people in the world. Most foraging peoples today have mixed diets, with foods coming from many diﬀerent sources, including local commodity stores. Inevitably, local stores intro- duce processed foods, which are lower in nutrients. For instance, anthropologist Dr. Polly Wiessner () found that store-bought items from the Ju/’hoansi village at Xamsa from  to  included sugar, ﬂour, bread, soup, candy, chips, and beer. FOOD PRODUCERS: HORTICULTURALISTS The last , years have seen a human population explosion. As numbers of people grew, land became scarcer and resources decreased. Some foraging groups with lands suitable for planting began supplementing their foraging lifestyle with food production, including keeping gardens, herding animals, small-scale farming, or eventually large-scale agriculture. In addition to land scarcity, there may have also been social and political reasons for the changes. Horticulture is the practice of maintaining gardens that produce food and other resources for family use. Because tending crops requires daily maintenance, groups who plant must settle in one area. Their villages are often small and occu- pied year-round. Hunting and gathering trips fan out from this central location. Gardening is done with the use of simple hand tools, such as digging sticks and other tools fashioned from objects in the environment. These groups mostly rely on rainfall for water. Horticulturalist Foodways Horticulturalists are food producers. While they may practice some hunting and gathering, they get a substantial percentage of their calories from crops they have planted, tended, and harvested. Crops vary widely, depending on the demands of the environment. Often there is some reliance on roots and tubers, possibly grains, and a selection of appropriate legumes, fruits, and vegetables for the region. How does a major change in food-getting strategies occur, such as the change from foraging to planting? Economic anthropologists see the answer to this question CHAPTER 5: FOOD 105 in the relation between group size and the food items available at any given loca- tion. The number of people that can be sustained with the existing resources of a given area is called the carrying capacity of the land. Among foragers, a group will remain in one place until the resources needed to feed and shelter all members of the group are used. Then they move on to the next campsite. If the human popula- tion in the area is so large that available food items are never enough, a group will be forced to seek a new strategy in order to feed its members. This process appears to be the origin of most horticulture. The Kaluli people are horticulturalists who live in the tropical rainforest in Papua New Guinea. They occupy communal homes called longhouses. They refer to their longhouses and their social group with the name of their land, signifying a deep connection to their physical environment. The Kaluli mainly gather wild sago, a starch, from the sago palm and supplement with a variety of produce from small family-maintained gardens. Their crops most commonly include bananas, bread- fruit, sugarcane, sweet potatoes, and some green vegetables. Small game and ﬁsh add animal protein to the diet. Kaluli food procurement strategies are cooperative, even though men and women pursue separate activities. Men clear the land for farming and plant crops. Women tend gardens, gather small game for extra protein, process food, and look after the village’s pigs. Social Organization Among horticulturalists, food-getting tasks are most often divided between men and women. However, the form this gendered division of labor takes varies across diﬀerent horticultural groups throughout the world. Among the Yanömami of the Venezuelan and Brazilian rainforest, for instance, men clear and prepare ﬁelds, and they plant and harvest crops including plantain, sweet potatoes, cotton, and tobacco. They also hunt and ﬁsh, controlling the group’s food resources. Yanömami women’s work is entirely domestic. In contrast, among the Jivaro groups of Peru and Ecuador, women are responsible for planting, tending, and harvesting crops including sweet potatoes, manioc, and squash that provide the bulk of their diet. Jivaro men hunt game and ﬁsh as supplements. Horticulturalists and the Environment A sustainable method of farming when there is plenty of available land is known as swidden (or shifting) cultivation. This is the primary technique used in many diﬀer- ent locations around the world to grow crops ranging from bananas to rice. Using swidden cultivation, farmers prepare a plot of land by clearing fast-growth trees and other plant material from an area and burning the debris directly in the plot. Ash from the ﬁre acts as a soil conditioner and fertilizer containing high levels of potassium, 106 THROUGH THE LENS OF CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY calcium, and magnesium. Gardens are planted in the nutrient-rich ash. After harvest- ing crops from that plot for a time, farmers move to another area and begin again. The movement from place to place on large areas of land allows the used plot to lie fallow and “rest.” Wild plant material eventually regrows. Depending on the amount of land available, a group can farm many plots in this way before returning to the ﬁrst, allowing land to lie fallow for up to ten years or more. Done correctly, swidden farming works with the area’s natural ecosystem. The swidden technique mimics what happens after ﬁres burn a landscape: after several years, plant life ﬂourishes again. Done poorly, however, it can erode the soil. This is the result when plots are not left to lie fallow, but are used continually without the micronutrients in the soil being replenished. FOOD PRODUCERS: PASTORALISTS Not all foragers ﬁnd it eﬃcient to settle in villages and plant gardens. Herding pasture animals is most successful in areas where the ecological conditions are poor for farming, such as in desert environments. The way of life that revolves around herding animals is called pastoralism. Depending upon the region, animals suited for herding may include goats, sheep, camels, yaks, llamas, reindeer, or cattle. Social and political motivations may have also contributed to adopting these livelihoods that shift from foraging to pastoralism. Pastoralist Foodways In pastoralist societies, animal husbandry is the main mode of sustenance. Animal herds provide food staples such as milk, blood, butter, yogurt, or cheese. Occasionally an animal may be slaughtered for symbolic or ritual purposes, but the utility of live animals far outweighs the beneﬁts of slaughtering animals for meat. Although pastoralists generally don’t farm, some groups may practice a more diversiﬁed econ- omy that includes some cultivation. They also trade with neighboring groups for food and other items. There are several hypotheses as to how and why pastoral lifestyles developed. One suggests that farming communities developed a secondary reliance on animal husbandry that provided the bulk of their protein and other nutrients. This idea suggests that agriculture and pastoralism developed concurrently. The second hypothesis suggests that hunters in foraging societies learned the habits of the animals they pursued. Thus, they developed successful techniques to graze their animals, keeping them alive for food and other material products. Both hypothe- ses may be valid in diﬀerent regions of the world. CHAPTER 5: FOOD 107 Figure 5.3 MONGOLIAN GER A Mongolian pastoralist’s home is called a ger (or yurt by outsiders). The ger can be moved and assembled rapidly as a family’s herd of camels, goats, sheep, cows, and/ or horses move from pasture to pasture. Even when school or work requires that they live in the city, Mongolians still use the family ger several times during the year. Credit: Paolo Fassina / CC BY-SA 2.0. The Basseri are pastoralists who live in Southern Iran. Today, there are approx- imately , Basseri occupying , tents in a region that extends from mountains to desert. The group is divided into networks of families who migrate together (occupying a handful of tents in the winter and up to  in the summer). They are seminomadic, moving their herds of sheep and goats along a route called the il-rah (tribal road). Tribal ownership of the road shifts at speciﬁc times of the year, allowing full access for all groups. Men generally ride horses while migrating along the route, while donkeys and camels carry women, children, and possessions. In order to maintain an adequate standard of living, each household strives to keep at least  sheep and goats; some may have up to . Milk and milk products (buttermilk, butter, and cheese) make up the bulk of the Basseri diet, supplemented with meat. They occasionally forage, hunt, and cultivate for additional dietary items, although the majority of external items comes from trade or purchase in the marketplace. Social Organization Pastoralists are nomadic, since herding animals requires going to where the graz- ing is good. Therefore, male herders may leave their families at a home base and be away for months at a time tending animals. Most pastoralists, such as the Basseri, use horses to cover a lot of territory and help with herding the animals. Therefore their livelihoods depend not only on the herds but also on the number and health of the horses. During the warm months, the group may move anywhere from once 108 THROUGH THE LENS OF CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY every three days to as often as once a day. During the cold season, the base camp may remain stationary longer, with herders making forays out to pasture. Each tent houses an individual family that is relatively autonomous, although the larger social group consists of all families who migrate together. The division of labor requires that, generally, men and boys herd animals, haul wood or water, and roast meat back at the tent. Women generally take care of the majority of food production and other domestic duties such as washing and sewing. Pastoralists and the Environment Nomadic pastoralism is sustainable in areas that are unsuitable for farming, as they can serve as excellent grazing lands for herd animals. Pastoralists may seasonally move back and forth over long distances to productive pastures, a migration move- ment known as transhumance. Animal grazing may actually help the environment in that it encourages the biodiversity of native plants. Pastoralists attempt to utilize every part of the animal and minimize waste. Beyond food products, animals also provide material goods. For example, animals’ hair or wool and hides can be woven into clothes, shoes, and tents. Dried organs, such as stomachs, can be used to carry water. The manure of grazers is highly ﬁbrous, allowing animal dung to be used as fuel for ﬁres. FOOD PRODUCERS: INTENSIVE AGRICULTURALISTS Large populations that can produce more than just the amount of food required for a subsistence economy practice what anthropologists call intensive agriculture. This type of planting is intensive because the land has a short (or no) fallow period, mean- ing ﬁelds are planted year-round with diﬀerent crops. The intensity of this planting may deplete the soil more rapidly than horticultural methods, which typically allow ﬁelds to recover for a time. Therefore, agriculture requires more preparation and maintenance of the soil through fertilizers, crop rotation, and water management. This type of intensive cultivation generally also requires more highly developed tools, such as plows, irrigation, and draft animals. All these inputs cost more in human labor, but also make agriculture more productive per acre than horticulture. Intensive agriculture can be small or large scale. Today, there are still at least two billion people who make their living as small farmers with less than two hect- ares of land (about ﬁve acres, or the size of two soccer ﬁelds). Almost all farmers in China,  percent of farmers in Egypt and Ethiopia, and  percent of farmers in India are family-run farms of this size (Rapsomanikis, ). These small farms still contribute substantially to feeding people all over the world. CHAPTER 5: FOOD 109 Figure 5.4 DIVERSITY OF MAIZE, OUTDOOR MARKET, PISAC, PERU Although we only see a few varieties of corn (maize) in North American stores, many types are grown in the Americas. Peru has a wide diversity of individual crops, including more than 50 varieties of maize and over 2,000 varieties of potato. These cobs are for sale at an outdoor market in Pisac. Credit: © Barry D. Kass / Images of Anthropology. Intensive Agricultural Foodways The earliest evidence for agriculture is from approximately , years ago in the Middle East. Populations living between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia settled on the rivers’ ﬂood plains to make use of fertile land and water resources. They dug irrigation canals to bring water to their crops, relying heavily on grains such as wheat and barley. Over the next several thousand years, agricul- ture appeared independently in other locations across the globe: the Indus Valley (Pakistan), the Yellow River Valley (China), the Nile Valley (Egypt), the Andes (Peru), and Mexico. Where agriculture arose, populations grew with a steady supply of food from crops. One might assume that since agriculture led to population growth, farming supported better nutrition. In fact, the opposite is true. Studies comparing the bones and teeth of people in farming societies with those in foraging societies show that health suﬀered under an agricultural lifestyle. Most agricultural societies depend heavily on just a handful of crops, especially grains, reducing the variety of vitamins and minerals. The mortality rate increased due to low nutrition levels, the physical stress of agricultural labor, and exposure to new pathogens from soil and animals. There is also evidence for domestication of animals such as cattle, goats, and sheep in the same time period. Animal domestication refers to the process of shap- ing the evolution of a species for human use. This is done through choosing the traits most suited to human needs and breeding animals for those traits. Domestication 110 THROUGH THE LENS OF CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY BOX 5.2 Food Matters: Ancient Aztec Foodways The Aztec Empire was built on intensive agri- Other important crops included beans (Phaseolus culture. However, it began with the migration vulgaris) and squash (Cucurbita varieties). The of nomadic foraging peoples called the Mexica Aztecs planted these crops, called the “Three (me-SHEE-ka) into the Valley of Mexico. Settling Sisters,” in close proximity: the maize stalks provide support for bean vines, and squash plants suppress on an island in today’s Mexico City, the Aztecs weeds, growing low to the ground. This type of founded Tenochtitlán in 1325 CE. By the time of companion planting can produce high quantities of the Spanish conquest of Mexico City in 1521, calories per acre. In addition, beans are “nitrogen- approximately 200,000 Aztecs inhabited a series fixing” plants, which replace the nitrogen in the soil of islands linked by waterways and canals (later used by the maize. These three staple crops support drained by the Spanish as part of their conquest soil sustainability and still provide nutrition for strategy). Agriculture laid the foundation for the millions in the Americas today. growth of the Aztec population, although they still In addition to practicing agriculture, the Aztecs supplemented their diet with foraging, hunting, employed an ingenious method of increasing farm- fishing, and swidden farming. ing acreage using the waterways surrounding their Maize (Zea mays) was the staple crop, and it played islands. They developed floating gardens, called chinampas. The chinampas were built by piling mud a revered symbolic role in Aztec political and reli- into a shallow area of water and planting willow gious life. The phases of the lifecycle of corn were trees in the corners. Roots of the trees would anchor personified by sacred deities including Xilonen the garden to the bottom of the lake, creating an (“fresh tender corn,” and the goddess of sweet corn artificial farming platform. Approximately 125 acres and tamales), Cinteotl (“deified corn,” or the Maize of chinampas are still used today for growing crops Cob Lord), and Chicomecoatl (“7 Serpent,” mature, in the Xochimilco area of Mexico City (Merlín-Uribe dried seed corn) (metmuseum.org). et al., 2012). develops companion animals to accompany hunters and working animals for the farms, as well as providing alternate sources of nutrition from animal products. Social Organization Intensive agricultural cultivation requires a fully settled population who can work the land throughout the year. Because a shift to grains as the staple crop can feed a large number of people, agriculture allowed settlements to expand over wide areas of land. Large populations result in more complex social, economic, and political systems. This complexity is reﬂected in the way settlements expand into a tiered CHAPTER 5: FOOD 111 structure, with high-status people living in the central area and lower-status people living in villages on the periphery. Because the central settlement is heavily popu- lated, it is referred to as a city. No longer is farming a way of life for everyone, as in smaller-scale societies. Therefore, occupational specialization begins. Agricultural laborers do not own their farms, but work for others. Owners of the land reap the beneﬁts of their labor, as well as the wealth produced from selling the crop surplus at the marketplace. Others pursue a multitude of occupations such as artisan, trader, merchant, soldier, or scribe. Some occupations are more highly valued than others, which is reﬂected in a social and economic hierarchy. This type of complex society requires the control of a centralized governing body, with the power of oﬃcially recognized politico-religious leadership. A class of nobles develops, which is able to harness the labor of workers to farm, build, or ﬁght. The peasant class supports the growth of the settlement by providing labor, often under oppressive conditions. Agricultural societies force the development of a social hier- archy in which those who control resources have power over those who do not. Intensive Agriculture and the Environment Agricultural production leads to an entirely diﬀerent relationship between people and land. While small-scale cultivation generally conserves future resources, the goal of large-scale agriculture is to maximize production. The intensity of year- round cultivation requires the use of more advanced tools. Draft animals suited to the area (such as oxen, zebu, or yaks) are used to pull plows to till the soil and create trenches for planting. Agriculture takes many forms, based on the needs of diﬀerent crops. The most common of these include maize, wheat, rice, millet, sorghum, and barley. Rice, ﬁrst domesticated in China approximately , years ago, is one of the world’s most commonly cultivated staple grains. Diﬀerent varieties of rice are suited to diﬀerent methods – such as dry rice cultivation, wet rice cultivation, and “deep water” rice cultivation – depending on the ecology of the area. Highland areas may be terraced to accommodate the irrigation needs of rice or other crops on mountainsides. FOOD PRODUCERS: INDUSTRIALISM Industrialism is a way of life in which highly mechanized industry produces food. This was the second major shift in food-getting technology. The ﬁrst shift was working the land, rather than simply relying on its bounty. The second shift took agriculture out of the hands of many workers, and placed it in the hands of fewer, 112 THROUGH THE LENS OF CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY who rely on advanced technology. The productiveness of a farming operation on a massive industrial scale relies on organization and management, the power of machinery, the eﬀectiveness of chemical inputs into the soil, and, today, informa- tion provided by the internet. The main goal of using technology to produce food is to create a viable product at the lowest cost possible. Industrial Foodways Around , a slow but steady Industrial Revolution began changing the way people in Western countries did their work. New machinery took over small-scale or home-based production, completing products much faster and more eﬃciently. Steam-powered engines fed by coal were put into wide use for transportation and power generation. Larger-scale wind- and water-powered technology, such as wind- mills and water wheels, allowed farms to grow in size and produce more food for more people at a lower cost. Since the middle of the twentieth century, mechanized production has moved toward tractors and combines that are powered by gasoline. Agriculture is now also heavily reliant on biochemicals such as pesticides, herbi- cides, and fungicides to help manage the success of crops on such a large scale. Fields with thousands of acres may today be planted with a single crop, such as corn or soy, to maximize proﬁt. Monocultured crops are more susceptible to loss from a single type of soil-borne illness or insect pest than are naturally resilient mixed ecosystems. Monocropping also depletes the soil of nutrients, especially when done year after year. Companies who produce and control the seeds, fertiliz- ers, and chemicals are constantly seeking new technologies to make their products more attractive than those of others. Unfortunately for farmers, agricultural prod- ucts are consolidated into just a handful of global multinational companies, leaving few options in conventional agriculture. An example of one country’s challenges with industrial agriculture is India’s “Green Revolution.” In the s and s, farmers in the Indian state of Punjab were the ﬁrst to adopt North American technologies to increase yields using high- yield seed varieties, chemical fertilizers, mechanized irrigation, and, later, genetically modified (GM) seed. At ﬁrst, these technological advances in agricultural meth- ods increased yields and supported the incomes and health of farming families. Over the long term, the gains were not sustainable. Farmers who adopted the intensive input technologies found their soils stripped of nutrients. Purchasing seed and fertilizers annually became a major burden for rural farmers. In addition, heavy water requirements ended up tapping the groundwater wells dry. Climate change has compounded the problems over the years, and farmers have increasingly been unable to repay bank loans. In tragic worst-case scenarios, farmers have been taking their own lives in order that their families can survive on insurance money. CHAPTER 5: FOOD 113 This occurs with alarming regularity, with oﬃcial reports of , Indian farm- ers dying by suicide between  and ,  percent higher than the national average (Kannuri & Jadhav, ). A second “Green Revolution” underway in India since the s increases reli- ance on multinational agricultural enterprises, removing protections and subsidies for small farmers. Many have adopted a strain of genetically modiﬁed cotton (“Bt cotton”) as a crop with the promise of more earning potential; however, this has not been as lucrative as the famers had hoped. Food sustainability organizations argue that consol- idation and globalization of Indian agriculture will end up decimating smallholding farmers, making the eﬀects of the ﬁrst Green Revolution seem minor in comparison. Social Organization Industrial food production operates in our cities and towns, and it links food produc- ers and consumers on a global scale. Ironically, the ability to feed millions through mechanized and digital technology has created a situation in which fewer people than at any time in our history are involved in the production of their food. From harvest to table, a food item may travel thousands of miles before it is consumed. Most food production takes place in rural areas on private lands owned by corpora- tions. These farming operations can stretch over thousands or hundreds of thousands of acres. The general public is not allowed on these private lands, so consumers don’t see crop or meat production. Food animals are raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which operate diﬀerently than those of the past did. In CAFOs, thousands, or even millions, of animals are fenced or crated to create maximum proﬁt in minimum space. Because these conditions are often unhealthy, conventional produc- tion demands that antibiotics be given to food animals at every meal to prevent illness. In addition, food production is a hierarchical activity, with landowners and land managers in control of a large workforce. Farm workers are referred to as “unskilled” labor due to their rote tasks and low wages. This ranked structure has its roots in slavery, especially in the sugar plantations of the New World, in which laborers were brought from colonized countries to work the cane ﬁelds and process the sugar. Agricultural workers have seen some improvement in working conditions in more- developed nations. However, conditions faced by the vast majority of farm workers who labor for others are largely unregulated. Often without legal status, migrant laborers work for low wages, live in diﬃcult housing conditions, are exposed to pesticides and other chemicals, and lack medical care and job security, as described by Dr. Seth Holmes in Fresh Fruit, Broken Bodies (). Economists and academic researchers agree that inter- national immigration has little to no economic impact on the native-born population and, on average, beneﬁts them (Card et al., ). Migrant workers are a crucial part of farm labor and industrial food production, which would eﬀectively cease without them. 114 THROUGH THE LENS OF CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY Largely due to the internet, consumers in industrial societies today have access Figure 5.5 to information about environmental damage and health risks resulting from the INDUSTRIAL FACTORY FARM industrial food system. Consumers can seek information and opt to make more Factory farms and deliberate choices about food sources. A growing percentage of consumers are confined animal choosing to buy their food from local sources such as farmer’s/ﬁsh markets, feeding operations have drastically changed the community-supported agriculture (CSA) boxes, and other direct-to-consumer way people produce food. programs. There is also a high demand for organic foods, preferably from farms Credit: MENATU / Shutterstock. that promote ecological balance and biodiversity. Certiﬁed organic foods in the United States and Canada must be free of chemical pesticides or fertilizers and not genetically modiﬁed. These are often more expensive options, however, and therefore not accessible to everyone. Industrialism and the Environment Industrial food production creates a number of environmental concerns. Most of these relate to pollution of the area surrounding farming operations, and beyond. Pollution may be caused by animal waste or biochemical inputs such as pesticides or herbicides. CHAPTER 5: FOOD 115 Because factory farms concentrate an enormous number of animals in a very small area, the farms generate too much manure to be absorbed by the land. Excess manure is stored in huge holding tanks or manure lagoons, and is often overapplied to ﬁelds, releasing hazardous gases into the air. It may contaminate local ground- water and surrounding waterways with pathogens and excess nutrients. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, agricultural practices are responsible for most of the pollution in US lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands (EPA, ). Pesticides are also responsible for illness in people who are exposed to them through farm labor, spraying around the home, or in food. Even when pesticides are used correctly on farms, they still end up in the air and the bodies of farm work- ers. Pesticide exposure is associated with dizziness, headaches, nausea, vomiting, as well as skin and eye problems. Long-term exposure is associated with more severe health problems such as respiratory problems, memory disorders, miscarriages, birth defects, and several types of cancer. GLOBALIZATION OF FOOD Globalization is the integration of economic, social, political, and geographic bound- aries and processes. In regards to food, it is a series of interconnected systems from production to consumption that links people in places all over the world in a complex, yet largely invisible, chain of producers and consumers. Because inequalities exist struc- turally, the poorest people generally suﬀer the most inequity as a result of globalization, not only in the labor needed to produce the food, but also in terms of access to it. Pelto and Pelto () argue that three major transformations have aﬀected food access since the industrialization and globalization of the food system. . Food production and distribution is embedded in an increasingly intertwined and rapidly growing network of global interdependency. . In more developed nations, this leads to better nutrition due to a wider availabil- ity of diverse foods, especially for people with resources. . In developing nations, the elite beneﬁt while the majority of people who were dependent on local production and methods suﬀer economically and nutritionally. Due to interdependent global food transport networks, urban dwellers in modern industrial society have access to a smorgasbord of international foodstuﬀs. Ripe produce is available in the middle of winter, something our ancestors couldn’t have imagined. Eating a wide range of healthy products supports the health of those who can access those foods. 116 THROUGH THE LENS OF CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY On the other hand, the globalization of the market creates a set of issues for food production and distribution that should be examined critically. Importing produce from all over the world depletes the local farming economy and creates hardship for people dependent on agricultural jobs. Even in those more developed nations bene- ﬁting from imports, the produce, meat, ﬁsh, and other fresh imports in the grocery stores are more expensive than the less-healthy, processed foods in the center aisles, making healthy eating diﬃcult for those on limited incomes. For individuals who are food insecure, this means that a healthful diet is often out of reach. In addition, developing nations engaged in the production of food often lack the same protections as the countries originating the demand. With fewer environ- mental protections, the soil and waterways of producing nations may be polluted by pesticide runoﬀ or other waste products. With fewer protections, laborers may work under conditions that are unhealthy, illegal, or potentially dangerous. One way in which consumers in high-income nations exert some control over their own consumption is by adopting a deliberate form of eating that emphasizes fresh, plant-based, and local foods. Vegetarianism is a diet that emphasizes plant- based foods and restricts meat and ﬁsh, and veganism is a diet that is composed wholly of plant-based foods and restricts products made from animals or their prod- ucts, such as dairy and eggs. People practice versions of these diets for religious and cultural reasons around the world. However, in regions of industrial food production eaters may choose a restrictive diet in order to support personal and environmen- tal health, or reject the idea of animals as commodities for human consumption. THE HUMAN DIET Diﬀerent methods of getting food and ecosystems around the world make human diets widely diverse. The Maasai and Samburu (Lokop) people of Kenya and Tanzania can live mainly on blood, milk, and occasionally meat from their cattle; Hindus eat a vegetarian diet of mostly grains, pulses, and vegetables; and Inuit can mostly subsist on ﬁsh, seal, whale, and other marine life. How can all these diﬀer- ent diets be healthy? The human body has the incredible ability to get the nutrients it needs from many diﬀerent sources of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins and a range of vitamins and minerals, as long as the sources are whole foods. Cooking is part of human heritage as well, and both raw and cooked foods are part of a healthful diet. The environment can also help nutrient synthesis. An equatorial climate helps the skin synthesize Vitamin D quickly from the sun. Vitamin D is essential for growth and development, and may compensate for a lack of Vitamin D-rich foods. CHAPTER 5: FOOD 117 Poorer nutrition results when communities shift from a diet based on locally sourced and home-prepared whole foods to one that is based on store-bought and processed foods. Whole foods oﬀer a diverse array of nutrients, while processed foods rely heavily on white ﬂours, processed soy, chemical preservatives, salt, and sugars. Natural sources of sugar in the local environment, such as fruit or honey, often provide better nutrition and a lower glycemic index than processed sugars. Studying human diets throughout the past several hundred thousand years has made it clear to anthropologists that humans evolved as omnivores. The bulk of the human diet has come from plant material and wild animal protein. Of course, the ratio of plant to animal food items was dependent on what the environment oﬀered. No matter what dietary choices are available in the local area, in general it’s most adaptive and healthful for humans to eat foods that are as close to the natu- ral forms in which they grow as possible. SUMMARY This chapter has examined the diﬀerent ways in which people procure their food. Mirroring the learning objectives stated in the chapter opening, the key points are: Depending on the limitations of the environment, the society’s technology (including knowledge and skills) will be diﬀerent. The largest division in technologies is between those people who seek their food (food foragers) and those who manipulate the environment to grow and raise it (food producers). Not only are the food procurement techniques diﬀerent, but the social structures are diﬀerent as well. The population size and complexity of societies tend to grow as people move from foraging to horticulture or pastoralism. Intensive agriculture allows a society to support an even larger population. The mechanization and digitization of industrial agriculture can feed people all over the globe. Each of these food-getting techniques creates a diﬀerent relationship between people and their ecosystems, with some of the most aggressive practices occurring on a large scale today with the use of monocropping in agriculture. The globalization of food production, distribution, and consumption has made food products more available around the world but has also contributed to food inequality and insecurity. Nevertheless, it seems clear that as long as humans eat a diet based on whole foods, they can be healthy and thrive on a wide variety of food items. 118 THROUGH THE LENS OF CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY Review Questions 1. What characteristics distinguish food foragers? 2. What characteristics tend to correlate with the five basic subsistence types: foraging, horticulture, pastoralism, intensive agriculture, and industrialism? 3. What are some of the major changes that have accompanied the industrial and globalized food systems? 4. Since humans everywhere eat different kinds of foods, what seem to be the requirements for a healthy diet? Discussion Questions 1. Have you ever sought out “authentic” food experiences? What does it mean to you to eat “authentic” food? 2. What type of “tool kit” does a modern industrial eater need to survive? 3. Do alternative food movements today have any similarities to any of the food- ways discussed here? 4. Have you ever sought out foods that were produced, grown, or sold in a partic- ular way due to environmental or health concerns? Visit lensofculturalanthropology.com for the following additional resources: self-study weblinks further questions reading CHAPTER 5: FOOD 119 dŚŝƐƉĂŐĞŝŶƚĞŶƚŝŽŶĂůůǇůĞĨƚďůĂŶŬ

Lenx Chapter 5: Food PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue