*

SEXUAL SYMBOLISM IN FLATWARE

E. A. Hammel

University of California, Berkeley

The methods and theses presented by Professor Levi-Strauss

have opened new vistas in the understanding (indeed, in the Verstehen)

of cultural phenomena. Professor Levi-Strauss's analyses have usually
been based on exotic data, but one recent article, "The Culinary

Triangle," pushes the new attitudes and methods squarely into the breach
left by the paucity of consideration of more common materials.1 If,
indeed, these new theories have relevance for our understanding of

symbolism in its myriad forms, why should we not apply them to data
close at hand? Such applications would have two advantages: the

familiarity of the data would facilitate verification of the hypotheses,
and the hypotheses, thus confirmed, would provide greater scientific and

humanistic understanding of the world and culture in which we ourselves
live. It is the intention of this paper, both in method and in empirical
subject, to deepen Levi-Strauss's stimulating penetration into the
obscurity of the culinary triangle.

One of the commonest lexical domains in the area of material
culture in Western civilization is that of "flatware," that is, the

metal instruments employed in eating. True, these materials sometimes
are of wood or plastic, and there is some overlap with the domain of

"cutlery," so that some particular items fall into both domains (steak
knives, for instance). Nevertheless, the limits of the domain are suf-
ficiently distinct to allow analysis of its contents.2 I do not intend
here to perpetuate the naturalistic bias evidenced in so many "compo-

nential" analyses, by restricting myself only to the elaboration of some

Delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Kroeber Anthropo-
logical Society, Berkeley, April 22, 1967.

23

code for the designation of immediately observable characteristics of

the objects themselves, or of complex manipulation of such codes; rather,
I will be concerned with the discussion of the structural relationships
between the objects, except for a few comments on their particular

nature. We are thus concerned not only (or not even principally) with
the structure of some referential set of observable characteristics (as
in componential analyses), or with the manipulation of these notations
of reference for the reduction of redundancy (as in transformational

analyses), but rather with componential and transformational theorizing
about the direct relationships between the objects of our concern. In
this, we hope to stress again the general principles of such relation-
ship so often found in all varieties of symbolism, including behavior
ordinarily considered to be purely instrumental.

It is first of all noteworthy that the general set "flatware"
consists of three and only three immediately constituent subsets. In

asking informants the control question (vide Metzger, Williams, Berlin
and others), "How many kinds of flatware are there?", we usually re-

ceived the answer, "Three." In reply to another question, "What kinds
of flatware are there?", we learned, "Knives, forks, and spoons" (in

that order). It is only with difficulty that one can persuade infor-

mants to expand the number of immediately constituent sets, and infor-
mants are often confused about the precise nature and structural

position of items so elicited (e.g., the infant's "pusher" in Britain).
There is really no difficulty, however, in their identification of the

three sets named or in their assignment of individual items of flatware
to one or another of the subsets; they almost always show high agreement
(cf. Frake 1961). We know, of course, that it is no accident that there
are three subsets (Dundes Ms.).

The three subsets, however, contrast with one another on a

series of binary rather than of trinary, quaternary, or any other kind
of dimensions. The structure of three subsets is in fact an epiphe-

nomenon of the multiplicity of binary distinctions (vide Levi-Strauss

24

1966); these distinctions extend beyond the material to the behavioral
sphere and indeed to the structure of opposition and mediation in
symbolism.

We should first consider the structure of the oppositions

themselves, then pass to examination of mediating principles. I should
like to offer one of the principal hypotheses immediately, namely that
these utensils are basically sexual symbols. Their diffterentiation on
these principles is thus basically one of male versus female, but the

distinctions are not absolute. 3 Rather, they are relative distinctions,
and it is most important to stress this, not only from a methodological
but also from a theoretical point of view. We can best carry out this

portion of the analysis if we distinguish "more male" from "less male,"
understanding that in any particular opposition, the first of these is
"male" and the second "female" in the relative sense noted.

We may first note that knives and forks are sharp, while

spoons are rounded, the first displaying male and the second female

characteristics. However, forks are possessed of multiple sharp mem-
bers and knives only of one, so that we may initially judge forks in
this instance to be more male than knives. Thus, with respect to
knives and spoons, forks are male; with respect to forks, in this

illustration, knives are female, but they are male with respect to

spoons, and spoons are female with respect to forks and knives. The

maleness of forks is also demonstrated by the phonetic similarity be-

tween their lexeme and one of the (in several senses) vulgar expressions
for sexual intercourse (John Thompson, personal communication, 1964).

This interesting homonymy does not occur in other languages with which
I am familiar, but statistical proof is not required for essentially

mechanical structural models. To go on with these physical character-
istics, we observe that knives and forks are elongate while spoons are
curved; I do not refer here only to the length of the utensils but to
their form. In length, it is also true that knives and forks are

longer than spoons in most instances; that is, if the utensils are

25

matched for their rank in length, it will generally be found that, in

any set of flatware, the longest knife is longer than the longest spoon,
as is the longest fork longer than the longest spoon, etc. The fact

that one can find some spoon that is longer than some knife i's irrele-
vant, for the essential initial pairing has not been accomplished.

Now, again with respect to length, it is true that knives are longer
than forks of equivalent rank in their own subset. It would thus be

apparent that knives were more male than forks, and this might refute

the evidence of greater (multiple) maleness of forks noted above. How-
ever, it seems to me that mere length is only the crudest measure of

maleness, and in this instance, I would not accept the detail as refu-
tation. It does, however, raise the issue, and we must reserve for

later consideration this problem of ambiguity concerning the degree of
maleness of knife and fork. The ambiguity is intensified by the fact
that the three-tined fork is a symbol for the sea, which is in many
cases itself a female symbol, but also associated with a male deity.

Further, we may note that both knives and forks are relatively flat in
their form, compared to spoons, but that forks are slightly cupped,

with respect to knives. Again, knives and forks appear more male than
spoons, but forks are in an intermediate position, as with length.

We may turn now to the nature of culinary action rather than
just of form. How do these utensils function in opposition? First,
we are obliged to distinguish European (particularly British) custom

from American; I would like to draw particular attention to the theore-
tical significance of this necessity. We will see here that apparently
disparate cultural forms, spatially separated, are in fact only allo-
morphs of the same structural entity. Both in America and in Europe
(including Britain), the fork is used to pierce and in conjunction

with the knife to pierce while the knife cuts. Maleness is demonstrated
for the fork by its piercing action and for the knife by its penetra-

tion; however, the cutting action of the knife suggests some anti-male

aggression as well, directed against the fork, a point on which we will

26

comment later. The carnal focus of this opposition should not go un-
noticed.

The problem of the ambiguous position of the fork can also

be illustrated in consideration of its use with foods other than meat.

In America, the fork is used in the same fashion as the spoon for cer-
tain kinds of foods which are of a consistency that does not admit of
piercing. The knife is not an adjunct to or a substitute in this

operation, at least not in sectors of the society in which all utensils
are available.  In Britain, the fork is also used as a receptacle, but
in conjunction with the knife, receiving that which is placed on it by
the (male) knife. Even in the joint use of knife and fork with meat,
we must note that although the action of the fork with respect to the
meat is to pierce, its function with respect to the knife is to hold

or grip. Thus the fork grips while the knife penetrates, even if only
edgewise. The ambiguity of the situation is precisely what one should
expect, and it is the advantage of this nominological method not only
to expose but also to explain such ambiguities. We may note further,

before proceeding, that at the end of the actions described above, the

operation of the knife and fork is to disengage or withdraw, while that
of the spoon is to release or pour out. The function of the fork, in
its ambiguous role with certain foods not amenable to penetration, is
also to release or pour out.

Before proceeding to a discussion of principles of mediation
and analysis of these relationships, we should note a few more types of
opposition. In any initial use of these utensils, the fork is usually
seized with the left hand, and the knife with the right, when the two
are used jointly. (This is reversed, of course, by persons who are

left-handed). In Europe, the fork is seized with the left hand even

when used alone, while in America it is seized with the right in a more
female kind of usage, since the spoon is normally used with the right

hand alone in all instances. It is also true that the fork in America
is transferred to the right hand after the cutting operation in

27

conjunction with the knife has been completed. Thus, at the conclusion
of an ambiguous operation in which the fork pierces yet grips, while

the knife penetrates and cuts against it, the American fork is shifted
to the female side, that is, to the hand which is otherwise occupied
only by an exclusively female utensil, the spoon, or by a utensil
functioning as a spoon.

We come now to the problem of mediation. By mediation I do

not mean only the intervention of objects or persons but also the inter-
vention of explanatory principles, as in the concept of "intervening
variables."

In laying the service, which is itself of some significance,
we find that in America the fork is always placed to the left of the

plate and the spoon to the right. The knife mediates between these two
symbols of maleness and femaleness in its intermediate position.

Clearly the fork has the more male position, in extreme opposition to

the spoon, while the knife falls between the two. In Britain, the fork
is opposed to the knife, with the latter at the right side of the plate,
while the female symbol, the spoon, mediates between them in horizontal
position across the top of the plate. It should be very clear that the
symbolic structure involved here, including its "ambiguities," is not

only sexual but rather Oedipal. The intermediate, vacillating, ambigu-
ous position of the fork is thus clarified. We see the reasons why
the British spoon mediates between the knife and fork, and why the

American knife comes between the fork and spoon. The aggressive sym-
bolism of the knife, cutting against the fork, is elucidated, and the

significance of the ancient folk verse "....and the fork ran away with
the spoon" is made apparent.

We cannot ignore the fact that, historically, the fork is an

outgrowth of the knife, of a knife with a bifurcate point which developed
into two tines. These two tines then developed into three, and later
into four. The multiplicity of the male symbolism in the fork can be
seen as an overcompensation for subordinate status, as a kind of

28

wish-fulfillment through the mechanism known to folklorists as "kenning"
(Rowe 1962), or as a recognition of the immanency of lineage fission.

We must also observe the early determined opposition to the fork offered
by the celibate males of the Church, who occupied the same position in
that structure as the fork in flatware.

Thus we see that by this method of successive consideration
of types of form and of action, on a series of binary discriminations,

we can solve the problems of ambiguity which pervade cultural symbolism.
In fact, we should go further and point out that such ambiguity is the

very essence of cultural symbolism and is basic to its flexibility, its
power, and its capability of subsuming enormous specific domains
(Hammel 1964b).

NOTES

See L'evi-Strauss 1966 for analysis of "everyday" materials,

and 1963 for examples based on exotic data, particularly the "Structural
Study of Myth," which was in many ways the stimulus for the present
paper.

2 On some of these issues, see Burling, 1964a, 1964b; Hymes
1964; Frake 1964; Hammel 1964a, 1964b, 1965; Chafe 1965; Bright and
Bright 1965.

3 Neither are they in biology, of course.

4 Additional confirmation of some of these interpretations

comes from a field observation by Marida Hollos in Norway (in a letter
to Donald Cole), as follows: "If you drop a spoon here, a female
visitor is coming, if you drop a fork a male."

29

REFERENCES

Bright, Jane

1965

0. and William Bright

Semantic structures in northwestern California and the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. American Anthropologist 67:5:2
(Special Publication, Formal Semantic Analysis, E. A.
Hammel, ed.):249-258.

Burling, Robbins

1964a   Cognition and componential analysis: God's truth or

hocus-pocus? American Anthropologist 66:20-28.
1964b   Rejoinder. American Anthropologist 66:120-122.
Chafe, Wallace

1965    Meaning in language. American Anthropologist 67:5:2(Special

Publication, Formal Semantic Analysis, E. A. Hamel, ed.):
23-36.
Dundes, Alan

n.d.    Paper on the ritual significance of the number 3, delivered

at the annual meetings of the Kroeber Anthropological
Society, Berkeley, 1965.
Frake, Charles 0.

1961    The diagnosis of disease among the Subanun of Mindanao.

American Anthropologist 63:113-132.

1964    Further discussion of Burling. American Anthropologist

66:119.

Hammel, E. A.

1964a   Further comments on componential analysis. American

Anthropologist 66:1167-1171.

1964b   Culture as an information system. Kroeber Anthropological

Society Papers 31:83-91.

1965    Introduction. American Anthropologist 67:5:2(Special Publi-

cation, Formal Semantic Analysis, E. A. Hammel, ed.):l-8.
Hymes, Dell H.

1964    Discussion of Burling's paper. American Anthropologist

66:116-119.

L6vi-Strauss, Claude

1963    Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.

1966    The culinary triangle. Partisan Review 33:586-595.
Rowe, John H.

1962    Chavin Art: An Inquiry into its Form and Meaning.

New York: Museum of Primitive Art.

30