Compare TWO different approaches to the study of food, and discuss Essay

Compare TWO contrasting approaches to the study of food, and discuss what you find attractive or uncooperative ab out them - Essay ExampleFurthermore, an underlying framework cannot remain constant since it is susceptible of transformation under external stimuli. Both structuralism and post-structuralism tend to provide a theoretical framework that can suspensor in visualiseing how cultures are affected by their food and cooking practices but post-structuralism provides a comparatively flexible approach that accepts human influence and effects of historic events on culture. In assure to understand the nature and behaviour of food with the process of structuralism, it is important to analyze the framework of this approach. Structuralism is an inspired phenomena hailing from Gestalt psychology. Gestalts theory attempts to find out a rationale ground of how human mind works and derives patterns out of random or unobvious events. This approach further explains that events, individ uals or aims having same attributes tend to form an bond and stay together. Similarly, structuralism is an approach through which human behaviour can be analyzed with the help of different frame of references networked together. This network of relationships helps in identifying the actual position of a norm, ritual or an object in human life. Through this framework, early linguists and anthropologists tend to identify the signs showing rough-cut indications. Therefore, structuralism became synonymic with semiology. These semiotics or doctrines of semiology helped the literary thinkers to deduct common patterns from folk tales that helped in understanding relations of cultures to from each one other and their further evolution along with rationales of various norms and traditions. Although this approach was a result of literary explore performed by Ferdinand de Saussure and Vladimir Propp however it was given a broader definition in 1960s by Claude Levi-Strauss. Levi-Strauss employ this approach to analyze human patterns of human relationship and inventions. This research was further extended by various others such as Mary Douglas. Levi-Strauss performed his further research to identify the reasons for human race of similar myths present in different cultures. He explained that no myth has a value in its singular form and in order to have a meaning it is supposed to have a certain place in myths network or structure. Hence, myths exists universally and they are source of resolutions to social conflicts. Along with myths, rituals and traditions, food and activities connect to it play a vital role in understanding relationships existing between cultures. Levi-Strauss (1966, 1970) helped in identifying common patterns among different cultures and segregated the manner of culinary art of cooking in three fundamental categories i.e. boiling, roast and steaming. These fundamental cooking principles indicated that through norms and methods adopted by a gr oup of people, a meaning is produced in a culture which is reproduced and evolved through other peripheral practices. Activities as diverse as food preparations and existence of millions of recipes concluded that there were some common factors underlying in these cultures and they indicated a particular pattern of kinship that is known to different groups and individuals existing in a society, operating at unconscious level