Deciphering A Meal By Mary Douglass

Mary Douglas, an English writer of the twentieth century, applies structuralist frameworks to concepts in society to better analyze the patterns of individuals, social groups, and populations. In her essay “Deciphering a Meal,” Douglas outlines the significance of the meal in the current social system and identifies the trends across borders, religious texts, and even her own family. It is a symbol that reflects social boundary lines and levels of hierarchy present in interactions between individuals, the meal contains critical indicators of general societal expectations. While Douglas’s structuralist model of the elements of the meal and its role in shared connections serves as a foundation for understanding societal dynamics, she acknowledges

When using examples of a meal from certain traditions and cultures to further clarify how her proposed structure of the meal relates to any family, she writes with descriptive language that appeals to the reader’s senses. She portrays the idea of the meal from the view of a typical family “of the middle classes of London”, stating that the “example reeks of the culture” (69). By utilizing strong language that suits the subject of food, she creates a more engaging essay for readers, balancing the overall technical tone of the essay. Douglas continues to detail the cheese platter component of the French grand meal as “the divide between a mounting crescendo of individual savory dishes and a descending scale of sweet ones ending with coffee” (69). Here, her description allows the reader to view the meal in a different light because food is typically not expressed auditorily and confirms her perspective that every element of the meal is purposeful and significant to the final product. Resuming her previous discussion of the “A + 2B” and “a + 2b” meal formulas, Douglas offers more instances of meal items consistent with the formula. In the melon half-slice example, she uses “dusted with” and “decorated with,” separating the ‘A’ food item from the ‘B’ food items which make the formula easier to digest for readers and reiterates the validity of her theory. Her explicit examples of

She writes that “unless the symbolic structure fits squarely to some demonstrable social consideration,” additional analysis is needed (68). The application of her symbolic structure of the meal in society requires further interpretation unless it is a perfect fit for the family or scenario. She states further that the “fit may be at different levels…without…[showing some such matching, the analysis of symbols remains arbitrary and subjective” (69). The contrast between phrases like “fits squarely” and “remains arbitrary and subjective” when related to the capabilities of her theory balances the strict rules of structuralism that Douglas follows with her admission that her theory needs room for judgment (68-69). Throughout the passage, she continues to use both unsure languages like “oblique reference” and “the degree to which” and precise language like “cannot proceed further” and “point analysis stops” to express the guidelines around her theory on the patterns of the meal (69). The presence of both sides emphasizes the tension between being adaptable to diverse cultures that may alter the structure defined by Douglas. Her struggle to draw clear lines amid her structuralist mindset reveals her acceptance of her imperfect system and limits while also showing how her structure can be adapted beyond the blanket foundation structure