That none of the accounted commodities herein actually contain the qualities projected onto them - with only perhaps the exception of spice - raises questions about how ideology finds the means whereby to fashion societal change. It's the medium is the message on the global playing field. That is to say, how a spice, snuff box or cigarette, coffee or tea, beer or liquor, hashish or opium, manipulates its user into its act of consumption, and moreover a culture into its act of acquisition, is exactly the primary impact it has (perhaps this is loosely related to Pollan's thesis). Coffee creates coffeehouses, but the coffee is after all the subordinate feature thereof, just as the jig and jive of the snuffbox is ultimately more meaningful than the snuff. But is the ideology of the coffeehouse - the nascency of hyperactive information superhighways - already contained within the culture or is the ideology folded into the discovery of the object, which is in itself an act of ideological significance? That spice is the introductory chapter insists on its quintessence as the luxury commodity which encompasses the entire chain of modernization's cultural acceleration. To see the history of nature is as good as to see a history of humanity's relationship to otherness - that race was so heavily dealt with in early chapters of "the Problem of Nature" affirms this. Spice is otherly, superfluous, and cannot (for the most part) subsist on its own. To follow the author's comparison of it to oil is a heavily loaded metaphor. By contrast, petroleum itself is heavily otherly - the material of ages of earth "inanimate" to humankind - is inessential to modernity, but has infiltrated and pervaded it to the point of practical inseparability from it, forming the emphases we see in its medium of application - certainly not in its content. European man's successive formulations of nature and modes of production is symptomatized in these commodities which unfold, fold and refold the very fabric of culture.
Once again we see that natural objects have not only historically integrated themselves into society, but have altogether shaped and altered it. During the 15th—17th centuries, chocolate, coffee, pepper, salt, etc. were implemented as more than just flavors for foods. They served as commodities equivalent to gold, and they both represented and separated the classes. Equally as interesting is the concept of the commodities forming class and culture over long periods of time. The idea that these flavors alone joined countries and divided social structures for centuries is fascinating to me. Man took nature and adapted his culture to it, but he also changed these spices from their natural state (for example through the boiling, combining, cooking, aging, or liquefying of spices) The development of “taste” in the late 11th century epitomized the new way of life which was emerging, one which valued beauty, elegance, and wealth. I also found the reference to the use of coffee for medicinal purposes in chapter two intriguing, as it surpassed mere nutritional purposes and belonged solely to the 17th centuries “trend-setting strata of society.” As well, in chapter three, chocolate’s nutritional value ran parallel to coffees medicinal significance, and later, tobacco (or fog-drinking!) was linked to coffee in its “dry” (or non-alcoholic but equally as stimulating and pleasurable) nature.
The byproduct outshines the product, as a way of showing the power of consumer products to fashion trends and collective attitudes (*as well as exclusive ones [i.e. women in relation to each product])foods adopt charactoristics, real or imagined. the idea of refinement that comes with each of these products is interesting due to their limitless and benign existance today. currently, (in the european tradition)chocolate, tobacco and coffee span all classes, not as luxury items but symbols of a :deserved: standard of living. the movement of these products from the public to private sphere is an interesting assertion, but i am not sure the author's intention here: what is he trying to get across....?
The fact that commodities have the ability to shape a culture, define a class, pronounce differences between those who have and those who have not, is far from a new reality. To think that spices, however, can play such a monumental role is to think of various historical shifts and trends in an alternative way. The first chapter attributed the popularity of such simple spices (pepper, cinnamon) to the all so common lure of the Orient that Europeans experienced intensely and persistently. When thought of in this way, it is so far-fetched to assume that the realm of food and drink would not slip through the grasp of the alluring exotic cultures of the Middle East. Though I can understand why Shivelbusch would want to highlight the importance of imported seasonings and silk in the Middle Ages, I think the analogy he made comparing such things to the Western world's current dependency on oil was slightly hyperbolic and perhaps a bit too extreme. After all, I think it is easier to switch from wearing silk shawls to cotton ones than it is to switch from driving a personal car to riding a bike. One of the more interesting conclusions I thought the first half of this book came to can be found in the section on coffee, more specifically, the part about women and their relationship to the 'sober drink.' Shivelbusch says, "It is obvious that this female passion for coffee is to be seen as compensation for women's exclusion from another, more public domain" (p.69). This comment intrigued me for it lead me to think of the relationship between food and gender. Could this be a reoccuring theme in the history of food, that some cuisine lends itself more to men or more to women?Not only that, but more importantly, how does food play a role in the way in which people gather, discuss, and take part in their community? What societal implications or consequences can be found when analyzing spice, coffee, chocolate, etc?
One of the main notions I got from reading this text is the fascination with the exotic so to speak. What made all these spices and drinks evolve over time was the mere fact that they were previously unknown. It was truly interesting to read about the evolution over time of these stimulants and drinks. "The aroma of spices was believed to be a breath wafted from Paradise over the human world" (Schivelbusch 6). It was because of their unknown status that made them so known. What interested me most was the change of drinks; going from beer to coffee (then chocolate) to tea. Each drink was made out to be better than the next. Beer was the chosen drink at the time because it relaxed the soul but suddenly people began to get drunk and that was the end of beer. It soon changed to coffee the great "soberer" coffee was high class and produced energy. Out of coffee came something for children which was chocolate. After chocolate something healthier and more useful, tea. It seems as though we are headed in a direction of creation, who knows what will come next. The connection I draw is that the importance of each of these substances is sprung from the importance and impact of his predecessor. Coffee never would have had the same affect on the public at the time if they had not already gotten over and moved on from beer. I found this reading to truly evaluate the pattern of history and what steps it takes to move on from the present.
What I find most interesting about Schivelbusch's focused history is what it reveals about the formation of European identity. Specific goods became an important part of daily life. Coffee, tobacco, and chocolate were absorbed into capitalist ideology of asceticism and work ethic. Through their consumption, and rituals performed in the act of consuming, luxury goods also functioned as signifiers of class and created the fundamental motifs of bourgeois self-definition. But the objects consumed and displayed as essential makers of a European identity were imports from non-European countries. I wonder, how conscious they were of this inherent contradiction and how they may have tried to counter or suppress it.
While in some eras, and among some groups of people coffee was cherished while beer and liquor were abhorred, the opposite is true in different eras, or at different times, or among different groups of people. Not merely a matter of taste, it seems that people have come to justify their drink of choice by the beneficial psychological effects it has on them, while preaching about the negative psychological effects of the other beverage. As coffee became the beverage of choice for businessmen, coffeehouses became thought of as "sober" places, despite the fact that coffee is a mind-altering substance. I suppose it doesn't seem strange to me, but at least kind of funny that businessmen revered coffee because it was a "productive" drug and alcohol as a counter-productive drug. However, the over-consumption of coffee has the same effects as alcohol consumption: rambling, twitching, excitedness. It seems then, that the only logical explanation for the switch is about who supplies the goods and how a culture can benefit from choosing one over the other. personally, couldn't decide.
In the first half of the book “Tastes of Paradise” the author Schivelbusch discusses the various imported “plant products” that the Europeans began to enjoy hundreds of years ago. These products came from all over the world. Many spices like pepper came from countries in and around the Indian Ocean. Tea came from the Far East (China and Japan). Coffee came from the Near East and tobacco and chocolate came from the New World. Except for the spices, all of these products are mildly to strongly addictive. Coffee, tea and chocolate contain caffeine and tobacco contains nicotine. This probably helped increase and maintain a market for these goods. These commodities were sometimes very expensive, so sometimes only the upper classes and aristocracy could enjoy them to the fullest. Each class or social group used these items in different ways and had different attitudes towards them. Coffee and tea were regarded fondly by the newly emerging middle class in Europe because it allowed them to be more focused in their work. This dovetailed nicely with the Protestant work ethic. This made consumption habits an indicator of class.
Learning the historical social implications and practices of the substances I continue to use, sometimes abuse, on a daily basis was enjoyable as well as informative, on both an individual level and a larger societal level. I found the characterizations of each culture from the various centuries with their substance of choice to be valid in contributing explanations as to how the various classes and movements have themselves shaped. Considering the rationale for each of the substances presented over the last three or four centuries, I feel that as a student each serves a functional purpose day to day. This illustrates how diverse the demands of student life are, which is typically characterized as a mishmash consumption of coffee, alcohol, tobacco and narcotics. There are also some fantastic, sometimes hilarious, images presented in this book – especially those pertaining to gin and snuff. CHEERS!
What most interested me in the first part of Taste of Paradise, is the implication of spices being used as a catalyst for global change. I'm not so sure I agree. It is easy to look at the argument in Schivelbusch's favor if you take direct correlations and put a loaded word such a 'catalytic' before them. But, can we firmly point to a rise in the demand of spices as the direct "then" statement that caused early expansion. Was the need to expand not more closely tied to cultures that sought to increase its' TOTAL capital, not necessarily just in the epicurean sense of spice. Was spice really a catalyst, or moreso; a reactionary element of different cultures' perceived "need" to expand based on supply-and-demand in multiple sectors. Simply put, were spices the direct and imminent catalyst - or just one reflection of a global reform.
The spice trade was the original motive for Columbus's journey. He wanted to find a quicker route to india to find spices, so the idea that spices are somewhat responsible to global change can be directly related to the discovery of the Western World. I agree with Schivelbusch's on that point that spices have played a vital role in shaping of modern societies. I also kinda like how he compared the European Spice pepper and coffee trades to the American dependence on forigen oil, it may be a stretch but it was something interesting that i had never considered. But the point that is prevalent and on point through the book is that humans become dependent on luxuries and commodities. And a lot of there actions and movements are tied to these commodities. But at the same time these commodities are still making people rich today, if coffee were not so good then why is there a star-bucks every 200 yards, or why is the tobacco industry a trillion dollar industry. PS Whats with the hot dog on a stick picture
The spice trade was the original motive for Columbus's journey. He wanted to find a quicker route to india to find spices, so the idea that spices are somewhat responsible to global change can be directly related to the discovery of the Western World. I agree with Schivelbusch's on that point that spices have played a vital role in shaping of modern societies. I also kinda like how he compared the European Spice pepper and coffee trades to the American dependence on forigen oil, it may be a stretch but it was something interesting that i had never considered. But the point that is prevalent and on point through the book is that humans become dependent on luxuries and commodities. And a lot of there actions and movements are tied to these commodities. But at the same time these commodities are still making people rich today, if coffee were not so good then why is there a star-bucks every 200 yards, or why is the tobacco industry a trillion dollar industry. PS Whats with the hot dog on a stick picture
It was interesting to see how much food can change a culture. For example, alcohol was the main drink until coffee came along; it was all that was available and therefore the people did not have the views we hold about it today. But when coffee was introduced, all of that changed. Coffee became the icon of the intellectual and worker. The caffeine eliminated lethargy and created a more focused being capable of getting through a day of work. Alcohol, however, made people even lazier than normal and therefore, the quality of their work was not appreciated as much anymore. This could be considered to be the earliest stages of how we think of alcohol today: it's okay in moderation but a mess without a limit.
Wolfgang Schivelbusch discusses how certain spices, stimulants and intoxicants have affected human history. Through the history of spices, Schivelbusch traces European trade with the orient and how it ended up being a globalizing tool. Coffee, tobacco, tea and chocolate are introduced and spread around Europe. Today these all have the same function they had early on, and are still shaping our lives directly.
The theory that commodities can define a culture is a familiar one, but Schivelbusch complicates this central idea, proposing instead that the relationship between a culture and its commodities is not this one-sided. Instead, it seems to be a sort of feedback loop wherein the culture discovers and defines the commodity, lending it a specific and subconscious language of meaning. It is only then that the commodity has the power to transform the culture into which it has been accepted as a social idiom. Commodities become more than commodities - it was not the physical act of drinking coffee, for instance, that created the coffeehouses and cultural climate of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Instead, it was the meaning behind coffee that allowed these institutions to exist. Commodities themselves become a sort of social currency that can be used in symbolic functions and transactions as well as actual activities.
Schivelbusch indicates that in the 18th and 19th centuries, certain foods - coffee and chocolate in particular - were status symbols, capable of reinforcing distinctions within the social hierarchy. Below, Caroline calls this "bourgeois self-definition", which I think is a fair description. Now, if this is as true now as it was then, what foods may perform this function today? Numerous epicurean indulgences come to mind, but it seems to me that trends in local food make a curious recent example, given Schivelbusch's account (corroborated in these comments) of the value placed on exotic goods precisely because they come from far away.
Schivelbusch’s Tastes of Paradise was a really fascinating to me. Reading histories that incorporate other things besides solely human interactions and occurrences now seems so incomplete. The human desire for spices and intoxicants has been the cause of many important events. In the book, Schivelbusch discusses how these spices and intoxicants greatly influenced status, race relations, economy, culture, etc. The contradictions in this history are incredible. Europeans felt that other, less developed countries were made up of sub-humans and yet these substances were a necessity among Europe’s elite. These spices defined European culture just as much as it destroyed culture in other places. With a rise in demand for spices and intoxicants, came the rise in slave trade thus devastating other populations. “Tastes of paradise” therefore created greater separation between nations even though they also provoked globalization.
Shivelbusch's discussion of how drugs become associated with different social classes provides relevant insight into the perspectives and laws of contemporary American Society. Until recently, as in a few months ago, the statutes penalizing the sale and consumption crack were drastically harsher than those of its cousin, cocaine. While the two drugs are essentially the same in terms of chemical composition (crack is mixed with calcium carbonate), they are different in terms of the method by which they are ingested and the demographic that uses each drug. Crack is smoked, whereas cocaine is snorted. Perhaps the biggest difference though, which led many to accuse the government of institutional racism, is that cocaine is largely consumed by wealthy whites while crack is largely smoked by poor blacks. While these are generalities, many believed that this distinction formed the basis of the striking divide in legalistic treatment between these drugs. The same can be true for the cultural and legal legacy of marijuana, which was originally consumed by black jazz musicians and mexican immigrant workers. While it now appears that marijuana use transcends all socioeconomic demographics, it remains illegal. I think that Anika makes a good point when she says that nicotine and caffeine "dovetailed nicely with the protestant work ethic" and thus were welcomed into mainstream society, while other drugs became socially passe or unacceptable. These drugs continue to be some of the most widely used and accepted drugs in America, while cigarettes claim thousands of lives per year.
18 comments:
That none of the accounted commodities herein actually contain the qualities projected onto them - with only perhaps the exception of spice - raises questions about how ideology finds the means whereby to fashion societal change. It's the medium is the message on the global playing field. That is to say, how a spice, snuff box or cigarette, coffee or tea, beer or liquor, hashish or opium, manipulates its user into its act of consumption, and moreover a culture into its act of acquisition, is exactly the primary impact it has (perhaps this is loosely related to Pollan's thesis). Coffee creates coffeehouses, but the coffee is after all the subordinate feature thereof, just as the jig and jive of the snuffbox is ultimately more meaningful than the snuff. But is the ideology of the coffeehouse - the nascency of hyperactive information superhighways - already contained within the culture or is the ideology folded into the discovery of the object, which is in itself an act of ideological significance? That spice is the introductory chapter insists on its quintessence as the luxury commodity which encompasses the entire chain of modernization's cultural acceleration. To see the history of nature is as good as to see a history of humanity's relationship to otherness - that race was so heavily dealt with in early chapters of "the Problem of Nature" affirms this. Spice is otherly, superfluous, and cannot (for the most part) subsist on its own. To follow the author's comparison of it to oil is a heavily loaded metaphor. By contrast, petroleum itself is heavily otherly - the material of ages of earth "inanimate" to humankind - is inessential to modernity, but has infiltrated and pervaded it to the point of practical inseparability from it, forming the emphases we see in its medium of application - certainly not in its content. European man's successive formulations of nature and modes of production is symptomatized in these commodities which unfold, fold and refold the very fabric of culture.
Once again we see that natural objects have not only historically integrated themselves into society, but have altogether shaped and altered it. During the 15th—17th centuries, chocolate, coffee, pepper, salt, etc. were implemented as more than just flavors for foods. They served as commodities equivalent to gold, and they both represented and separated the classes. Equally as interesting is the concept of the commodities forming class and culture over long periods of time. The idea that these flavors alone joined countries and divided social structures for centuries is fascinating to me. Man took nature and adapted his culture to it, but he also changed these spices from their natural state (for example through the boiling, combining, cooking, aging, or liquefying of spices) The development of “taste” in the late 11th century epitomized the new way of life which was emerging, one which valued beauty, elegance, and wealth. I also found the reference to the use of coffee for medicinal purposes in chapter two intriguing, as it surpassed mere nutritional purposes and belonged solely to the 17th centuries “trend-setting strata of society.” As well, in chapter three, chocolate’s nutritional value ran parallel to coffees medicinal significance, and later, tobacco (or fog-drinking!) was linked to coffee in its “dry” (or non-alcoholic but equally as stimulating and pleasurable) nature.
The byproduct outshines the product, as a way of showing the power of consumer products to fashion trends and collective attitudes (*as well as exclusive ones [i.e. women in relation to each product])foods adopt charactoristics, real or imagined. the idea of refinement that comes with each of these products is interesting due to their limitless and benign existance today. currently, (in the european tradition)chocolate, tobacco and coffee span all classes, not as luxury items but symbols of a :deserved: standard of living. the movement of these products from the public to private sphere is an interesting assertion, but i am not sure the author's intention here: what is he trying to get across....?
The fact that commodities have the ability to shape a culture, define a class, pronounce differences between those who have and those who have not, is far from a new reality. To think that spices, however, can play such a monumental role is to think of various historical shifts and trends in an alternative way. The first chapter attributed the popularity of such simple spices (pepper, cinnamon) to the all so common lure of the Orient that Europeans experienced intensely and persistently. When thought of in this way, it is so far-fetched to assume that the realm of food and drink would not slip through the grasp of the alluring exotic cultures of the Middle East. Though I can understand why Shivelbusch would want to highlight the importance of imported seasonings and silk in the Middle Ages, I think the analogy he made comparing such things to the Western world's current dependency on oil was slightly hyperbolic and perhaps a bit too extreme. After all, I think it is easier to switch from wearing silk shawls to cotton ones than it is to switch from driving a personal car to riding a bike. One of the more interesting conclusions I thought the first half of this book came to can be found in the section on coffee, more specifically, the part about women and their relationship to the 'sober drink.' Shivelbusch says, "It is obvious that this female passion for coffee is to be seen as compensation for women's exclusion from another, more public domain" (p.69). This comment intrigued me for it lead me to think of the relationship between food and gender. Could this be a reoccuring theme in the history of food, that some cuisine lends itself more to men or more to women?Not only that, but more importantly, how does food play a role in the way in which people gather, discuss, and take part in their community? What societal implications or consequences can be found when analyzing spice, coffee, chocolate, etc?
Melina said:
One of the main notions I got from reading this text is the fascination
with the exotic so to speak. What made all these spices and drinks evolve over time was the mere fact that they were previously unknown. It was truly interesting to read about the evolution over time of these stimulants and drinks. "The aroma of spices was believed to be a breath wafted from Paradise over the human world" (Schivelbusch 6). It was because of their unknown status that made them so known. What interested me most was the change of drinks; going from beer to coffee (then chocolate) to tea. Each drink was made out to be better than the next. Beer was the chosen drink at the time because it relaxed the soul but suddenly people began to get drunk and that was the end of beer. It soon changed to coffee the great "soberer" coffee was high class and produced energy. Out of coffee came something for children which was chocolate. After chocolate something healthier and more useful, tea. It seems as though we are headed in a direction of creation, who knows what will come next. The connection I draw is that the importance of each of these substances is sprung from the importance and impact of his predecessor. Coffee never would have had the same affect on the public at the time if they had not already gotten over and moved on from beer. I found this reading to truly evaluate the pattern of history and what steps it takes to move on from the present.
What I find most interesting about Schivelbusch's focused history is what it reveals about the formation of European identity. Specific goods became an important part of daily life. Coffee, tobacco, and chocolate were absorbed into capitalist ideology of asceticism and work ethic. Through their consumption, and rituals performed in the act of consuming, luxury goods also functioned as signifiers of class and created the fundamental motifs of bourgeois self-definition. But the objects consumed and displayed as essential makers of a European identity were imports from non-European countries. I wonder, how conscious they were of this inherent contradiction and how they may have tried to counter or suppress it.
While in some eras, and among some groups of people coffee was cherished while beer and liquor were abhorred, the opposite is true in different eras, or at different times, or among different groups of people. Not merely a matter of taste, it seems that people have come to justify their drink of choice by the beneficial psychological effects it has on them, while preaching about the negative psychological effects of the other beverage. As coffee became the beverage of choice for businessmen, coffeehouses became thought of as "sober" places, despite the fact that coffee is a mind-altering substance. I suppose it doesn't seem strange to me, but at least kind of funny that businessmen revered coffee because it was a "productive" drug and alcohol as a counter-productive drug. However, the over-consumption of coffee has the same effects as alcohol consumption: rambling, twitching, excitedness. It seems then, that the only logical explanation for the switch is about who supplies the goods and how a culture can benefit from choosing one over the other. personally, couldn't decide.
In the first half of the book “Tastes of Paradise” the author Schivelbusch discusses the various imported “plant products” that the Europeans began to enjoy hundreds of years ago. These products came from all over the world. Many spices like pepper came from countries in and around the Indian Ocean. Tea came from the Far East (China and Japan). Coffee came from the Near East and tobacco and chocolate came from the New World. Except for the spices, all of these products are mildly to strongly addictive. Coffee, tea and chocolate contain caffeine and tobacco contains nicotine. This probably helped increase and maintain a market for these goods. These commodities were sometimes very expensive, so sometimes only the upper classes and aristocracy could enjoy them to the fullest. Each class or social group used these items in different ways and had different attitudes towards them. Coffee and tea were regarded fondly by the newly emerging middle class in Europe because it allowed them to be more focused in their work. This dovetailed nicely with the Protestant work ethic. This made consumption habits an indicator of class.
Learning the historical social implications and practices of the substances I continue to use, sometimes abuse, on a daily basis was enjoyable as well as informative, on both an individual level and a larger societal level. I found the characterizations of each culture from the various centuries with their substance of choice to be valid in contributing explanations as to how the various classes and movements have themselves shaped. Considering the rationale for each of the substances presented over the last three or four centuries, I feel that as a student each serves a functional purpose day to day. This illustrates how diverse the demands of student life are, which is typically characterized as a mishmash consumption of coffee, alcohol, tobacco and narcotics. There are also some fantastic, sometimes hilarious, images presented in this book – especially those pertaining to gin and snuff.
CHEERS!
What most interested me in the first part of Taste of Paradise, is the implication of spices being used as a catalyst for global change. I'm not so sure I agree. It is easy to look at the argument in Schivelbusch's favor if you take direct correlations and put a loaded word such a 'catalytic' before them. But, can we firmly point to a rise in the demand of spices as the direct "then" statement that caused early expansion. Was the need to expand not more closely tied to cultures that sought to increase its' TOTAL capital, not necessarily just in the epicurean sense of spice. Was spice really a catalyst, or moreso; a reactionary element of different cultures' perceived "need" to expand based on supply-and-demand in multiple sectors. Simply put, were spices the direct and imminent catalyst - or just one reflection of a global reform.
The spice trade was the original motive for Columbus's journey. He wanted to find a quicker route to india to find spices, so the idea that spices are somewhat responsible to global change can be directly related to the discovery of the Western World. I agree with Schivelbusch's on that point that spices have played a vital role in shaping of modern societies. I also kinda like how he compared the European Spice pepper and coffee trades to the American dependence on forigen oil, it may be a stretch but it was something interesting that i had never considered. But the point that is prevalent and on point through the book is that humans become dependent on luxuries and commodities. And a lot of there actions and movements are tied to these commodities. But at the same time these commodities are still making people rich today, if coffee were not so good then why is there a star-bucks every 200 yards, or why is the tobacco industry a trillion dollar industry.
PS Whats with the hot dog on a stick picture
The spice trade was the original motive for Columbus's journey. He wanted to find a quicker route to india to find spices, so the idea that spices are somewhat responsible to global change can be directly related to the discovery of the Western World. I agree with Schivelbusch's on that point that spices have played a vital role in shaping of modern societies. I also kinda like how he compared the European Spice pepper and coffee trades to the American dependence on forigen oil, it may be a stretch but it was something interesting that i had never considered. But the point that is prevalent and on point through the book is that humans become dependent on luxuries and commodities. And a lot of there actions and movements are tied to these commodities. But at the same time these commodities are still making people rich today, if coffee were not so good then why is there a star-bucks every 200 yards, or why is the tobacco industry a trillion dollar industry.
PS Whats with the hot dog on a stick picture
It was interesting to see how much food can change a culture. For example, alcohol was the main drink until coffee came along; it was all that was available and therefore the people did not have the views we hold about it today. But when coffee was introduced, all of that changed. Coffee became the icon of the intellectual and worker. The caffeine eliminated lethargy and created a more focused being capable of getting through a day of work. Alcohol, however, made people even lazier than normal and therefore, the quality of their work was not appreciated as much anymore. This could be considered to be the earliest stages of how we think of alcohol today: it's okay in moderation but a mess without a limit.
-Jacqueline Gallerson
Wolfgang Schivelbusch discusses how certain spices, stimulants and intoxicants have affected human history. Through the history of spices, Schivelbusch traces European trade with the orient and how it ended up being a globalizing tool. Coffee, tobacco, tea and chocolate are introduced and spread around Europe. Today these all have the same function they had early on, and are still shaping our lives directly.
The theory that commodities can define a culture is a familiar one, but Schivelbusch complicates this central idea, proposing instead that the relationship between a culture and its commodities is not this one-sided. Instead, it seems to be a sort of feedback loop wherein the culture discovers and defines the commodity, lending it a specific and subconscious language of meaning. It is only then that the commodity has the power to transform the culture into which it has been accepted as a social idiom. Commodities become more than commodities - it was not the physical act of drinking coffee, for instance, that created the coffeehouses and cultural climate of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Instead, it was the meaning behind coffee that allowed these institutions to exist. Commodities themselves become a sort of social currency that can be used in symbolic functions and transactions as well as actual activities.
Schivelbusch indicates that in the 18th and 19th centuries, certain foods - coffee and chocolate in particular - were status symbols, capable of reinforcing distinctions within the social hierarchy. Below, Caroline calls this "bourgeois self-definition", which I think is a fair description. Now, if this is as true now as it was then, what foods may perform this function today? Numerous epicurean indulgences come to mind, but it seems to me that trends in local food make a curious recent example, given Schivelbusch's account (corroborated in these comments) of the value placed on exotic goods precisely because they come from far away.
Schivelbusch’s Tastes of Paradise was a really fascinating to me. Reading histories that incorporate other things besides solely human interactions and occurrences now seems so incomplete. The human desire for spices and intoxicants has been the cause of many important events. In the book, Schivelbusch discusses how these spices and intoxicants greatly influenced status, race relations, economy, culture, etc. The contradictions in this history are incredible. Europeans felt that other, less developed countries were made up of sub-humans and yet these substances were a necessity among Europe’s elite. These spices defined European culture just as much as it destroyed culture in other places. With a rise in demand for spices and intoxicants, came the rise in slave trade thus devastating other populations. “Tastes of paradise” therefore created greater separation between nations even though they also provoked globalization.
Shivelbusch's discussion of how drugs become associated with different social classes provides relevant insight into the perspectives and laws of contemporary American Society. Until recently, as in a few months ago, the statutes penalizing the sale and consumption crack were drastically harsher than those of its cousin, cocaine. While the two drugs are essentially the same in terms of chemical composition (crack is mixed with calcium carbonate), they are different in terms of the method by which they are ingested and the demographic that uses each drug. Crack is smoked, whereas cocaine is snorted. Perhaps the biggest difference though, which led many to accuse the government of institutional racism, is that cocaine is largely consumed by wealthy whites while crack is largely smoked by poor blacks. While these are generalities, many believed that this distinction formed the basis of the striking divide in legalistic treatment between these drugs. The same can be true for the cultural and legal legacy of marijuana, which was originally consumed by black jazz musicians and mexican immigrant workers. While it now appears that marijuana use transcends all socioeconomic demographics, it remains illegal. I think that Anika makes a good point when she says that nicotine and caffeine "dovetailed nicely with the protestant work ethic" and thus were welcomed into mainstream society, while other drugs became socially passe or unacceptable. These drugs continue to be some of the most widely used and accepted drugs in America, while cigarettes claim thousands of lives per year.
Post a Comment