Mary Douglas, a pioneering British anthropologist, provided a powerful framework that can be put to use for understanding Arup K Chatterjee’s coinage of gastromythology. Through her studies of purity, taboo, and social structures, Douglas revealed that food is not merely a biological necessity but a mythical code that organizes society. Her work aligns closely with notions of gastromythology, which explores how myths shape culinary habits, reinforcing cultural narratives and social hierarchies.
In Purity and Danger (1966), Douglas examined how societies construct purity and pollution, particularly through dietary laws. She famously interpreted the kosher food prohibitions in the Hebrew Bible as a system of symbolic classification rather than arbitrary religious rules. For instance, the prohibition on consuming certain kinds of food is, arguably, not just about hygiene but about maintaining moral and social boundaries. This insight resonates with gastromythology, which examines how food myths create distinctions between the sacred and the profane. Just as Douglas saw food taboos as reinforcing group identity, gastromythology explores how myths about food consumption define societal affiliations—an idea deeply embedded in gastromythology’s analysis of the psychosociology of consumption.
In Natural Symbols (1970), Douglas argued that the structure of a meal is a microcosm of social order. The way foods are combined, served, and consumed reflects broader social hierarchies. This aligns with Chatterjee’s concept of gastromythology, which views food consumption as a ritualized performance rather than a mere act of eating. Gastromythology can be said to implicitly draw on Douglas’ insight that meals encode social myths, turning everyday eating into a narrative act. Douglas’ work also intersects with gastromythology in its analysis of how food myths regulate power dynamics. She highlighted how rules of purity tend to double up as tools of social conformity. Similarly, gastromythology examines how dominant cultures create dominant culinary narratives to justify and exercise dominant social codes. Douglas’ anthropological insights can be seen as a critical foundation for gastromythology, reinforcing the idea that food myths are not just symbolic but can actively shape, and be shaped by, social structures, power relations, and cultural identities. By linking her work to gastromythology, we see that eating is never just about sustenance—it is about meaning, symbolism, ideological, and social order.
GASTROMYTHOLOGY 