Unit 2 readings made me reflect upon the definition of food, how exploitation of a cultural object with meaning can convert into a commodity and the unfortunate situations that may occur when trying to earn money.
I remember from my own experiences at high school how many of my Peruvian friends would tell me about this magical drink and how it makes you see things and guides you spiritually and used to laugh it off thinking it wasn’t true. However, as time passed and I became more conscious of my surroundings, it is clear to me that there has been an enormous amount of distorted information as well as myths surrounding ayahuasca and its purpose. Homan discusses how all Shipibo and ayahuasca related objects and artwork are readily available on the internet, which further proves my point. (Homan, 2017, p. 169) Any object that has an extremely profound meaning to a particular culture, once it is spread to other cultures, specifically developed ones, tends to break out into combinations of other traditions and begins to have meanings that are not necessarily true. Not only does it become disfigured by outsiders, but it also brings negative externalities to the place of origin, in this case, a higher disparity between shamans and other locals, cases of sexual abuse, and even loss of traditional knowledge.
I also really enjoyed the interview with Professor Smith, especially when she discussed how ayahuasca in her opinion would not necessarily be considered a food, and I completely agree with that. Food, apart from the purposes of nourishment, provides us pleasure, we feel happy and content when we eat it. Ayahuasca, although it may provide you with inner peace and spiritual guidance, doesn’t necessarily fit the classification of food. Then again, this definition of food was created by Westerners, what would the Shipibo-Konibo say?
Works Cited:
Homan, J. (2017). Disentangling the ayahuasca boom. The World Ayahuasca Diaspora, 165-177.
Tamara’s Unit 2 Podcast Lecture
Hi Khushi,
I though you made a really interesting point by saying that Ayahuasca isn’t food. I agree with that. The whole time reading the texts about ayahuasca, I realized that Ayahuasca itself wasn’t nourishing. I think that just how both Profs discussed in the podcast, we can compare Ayahuasca to Marijuana. Personally, I consider Ayahuasca a drug, and I don’t believe drugs are of any form of true nourishment.
Hey Khushi,
I agree with both you and Andrea – the disussion about what is and isn’t food was interesting to consider, and the addition of cannabis as a food in the conversation was something I had never thought about, though I would hesitate to call it food and tend to agree with what Prof. Smith called ayahuasca: “the opposite of food.” However, your questioning of what the Shipibo-Konibo would define ayahuasca as is the reaction I also had when listening to the interview: with no disrespect to either Profs. Mitchell or Smith, they cannot say for sure what it can be defined as, considering they are not part of the Indigenous group. For example, would magic mushrooms be considered food? They are also psychoactives and may induce vomiting, but can be consumed through being eaten or brewed such as any other food.
Hello Khushi! You made some very good points about the readings! I really like the fact when you emphasized the spread of ayahuasca and the change of its meaning as it gets globalized and commercialized and how many negative effects it can have on the Indigenous culture itself. Honestly, I have never seen globalization as a thing that can cause that much harm but now I realize that by spreading ayahuasca across the world there is a lot of harm connected with it and the loss of its traditional meaning is one of the many negatives. I wonder how could we prevent “losses of meanings” of other indigenous substances or any other part of their culture while introducing Indigenous traditions to the world? Is there a way we could maintain the “real” meaning while making things globalized?
Thank you so much for your reflection! It was a very nice one and thought-provoking too! 🙂
Hi Khushi,
I really liked the discussion that your blog started. When I was listening to the podcast, I was also surprised when I did not have a definition of food after years of studying food-related topics. What is food? So, as I do with all the other words I don’t know, I googled it.
According to the Oxford dictionary, Food is “any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink or that plants absorb in order to maintain life and growth.” After reading the definition, I was confused about what nutritious means, so I googled it as well. According to the same dictionary, it is “efficient as food.”. So, I guess the dictionary doesn’t know either. Some processed foods have calories but no nutrients, and we still consider them foods.
Maybe food is like love. A word that is very frequently used, but that is very hard to define.