After Thursday's in-class discussion about the religious experience associated with food, I thought it was really interesting that Part 3 of The Omnivore's Dilemma explores the realm of hunting. Considered by many as means to a source of food, a "sport," or simply a way to prevent overpopulation, hunting is also regarded by some as a religious affair in which man and beast unite.
Although in his book Pollan primarily uses hunting as means to rebel against his upbringing, reconnect with his "hunter and gatherer" genes, and learn more about the ecology and ethics of eating, it is fascinating that he should take on this endeavor after alluding to the spiritual and religious suggestion of food in Part 2. In the first half of Part 3, Pollan only hints at the spirituality of hunting such as on page 281, by declaring that, "a hunter ... is alone in the woods with his conscious," and that "the ultimate destination of the journey" is to prepare and eat a meal in full consciousness of what was involved (281). However, I would argue that by the middle of Part 3, Pollan has come to acknowledge more fully the presence of religion in hunting.
While reading this section, I was reminded of a book I read for my Anthropology course last fall called The City at its Limits: Taboo, Transgression, and Urban Renewal in Lima by Daniela Gandolfo. In her book, Gandolfo analyzes the work of the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset who says that hunting is, "a vacation from humanity," (124) and that "in all justice, the meaning of the sport of hunting is not to elevate the beast to the height of man, but something much more spiritual than that: a conscious and almost religious humiliation of man who leaves aside his prepotency in order to descend toward the animal" (124).
I was keeping Ortega y Gasset's words in mind as I plowed ahead in Part 3 when lo and behold I found Pollan quoting the Spanish philosopher himself. While on some level I think Pollan recognizes the aspects of spirituality in hunting (such as in his recount of approaching his prey with his "hunter's instinct" [336]), I think that perhaps he is a bit hesitant to deem hunting a truly "religious" act. Even after recounting his own experience, Pollan feels the need to step back and say, Whoa, did I just say that? However, while Pollan can argue that word "religious" may be excessive, Gandolfo notes that the sport of hunting is the human attempt to re-create the numinous quality that the killing of any living creature has to our ancestors (124). The longing to reconnect with our ancestors mirrors our longing to reconnect with the animal world, and at times provokes the desire to push the limits which sustain our modern social world. Thus by hunting, humans have the opportunity to fulfill both desires thus partaking in an inherently religious act.
Although it is hard to say whose opinions resonate with me more as Pollan, Gandolfo, and Ortega y Gasset all have fair points, I think that ultimately the religious quality of hunting is up to the discretion of the individual. As I personally have not had much experience with hunting, nor do I consider myself religious, I would be interested to discuss this topic further tomorrow in class with anyone who has more knowledge than I.
I'm glad you wrote more about this, Alaina... I've been trying to figure out some of these ties too... and I think that it's interesting that there seems to be a connection between the religious experience and the pioneer ideal: everything is about getting back to "our roots." Figuratively, literally, and it makes sense that a society that is still highly religious would have difficulty separating religion from all of its other long-standing traditions.
ReplyDeleteHunting itself, though, I struggle with. Lots of things can be considered to ceremonial and people have religious experiences riding roller coasters... and despite sacrifice and the inarguable fact that killing a living thing has a lot of impact, I don't know if I want to call hunting religious. I'm with you--kind of torn.
I thought that the way Pollan integrated all of the different philosophers and theorists and still maintained a strong sense of himself as the narrator was really impressive. With each little summary of someone's point or assertion, he related it to himself or commented on it in his own discernible voice.
ReplyDeleteTo me, I thought that Pollan established himself as a very believable and compelling narrator in this section more than any other. The way he was able to synthesize tons of literature, present it to us, and also his own interpretation of it made me see him in a much more positive light than I had before. He seems like a very self-conscious and clever person. That "Whoa, did I just say that?" moment was great, it really made me see him as a human being who was actually struggling with what he has been presenting us instead of a weird omnipotent narrator who is totally removed from the story.