Embellishing the basic - this is probably a fundamental human tendency, but it made me think of the possible reasons. No, its not an opulence-austerity judgement I'm trying to make here. Its something else. Its how a basic need goes to become a social event, a celebration even. How it grows around itself appropriate codes, conduct and context to govern it.
Lets take food for instance. Scientifically, a basic need to sustain life. So simple... and objective! When and how, then, did it become what it is??
The connotations of food are as varied as any socio-normative paradigm can conjure - limitless almost!
For one, it is how we celebrate - the feasts for a festival, the birthday cake, the spread at a wedding; it is how we mourn - the fasts, the lents, abstinence from meats. It becomes an expression of love between a mother and her baby. It is the mark of social class, of religion, and of caste.
In different societies and different contexts, extravagance and austerity in food assume differntial values - while vegetarianism (and hence austerity in a way) is a mark of the upper caste and therefore, often denotes a "more evolved" state of being in Hindu society, the extravaganza of a wedding feast is what avers the social status of a family.
At Mughal durbars, there were upto 80 dishes and delicacies served at banquets for royal guests. Moreover, the number of items was directly proportional to the social hierarchy of the guest. It was common to serve 80 dishes to a Maharajah and 70 to a British Governor-General at the same dinner table! Here food becomes a mark of respect, and acknowledgement of ones power and title.
The food eaten by one religious community is haraam for another. The pork-beef tussle is legendary in this. The poor animals who died for the cause of a good meal would cringe at the number of human lives they have claimed through communal riots. Infact, wasn't the 1857 Mutiny a result of these food taboos?!
In the absence of the pious who are well versed with the basis (and books) of their peity, food becomes a proxy symbol...oh, and so much easier as well - its just a matter of eating 'this', not eating 'that', and going absolutely ballistic if 'that' is eaten or served in your presence!
Food also becomes the mode of aculturation. It is common to see dominant cultural groups impress (and impose) minorities through the food route - foods, ways of eating, and methods of cooking. While interesting fusion food cuisines have emerged in more recent times with the masala chai shorbet, we cannot disregard the most relished impositions of the Central Asian kebabs and pilafs by the Mughals and the Portuguese sorpatel and bebinca on Indian palates. The British, thankfully, could not conquer much on the food front... the Indian palate is probably far more discerning and resilient than the Indian mind!
The ban on cow slaughter and therefore, on beef consumption in certain parts of the country - affecting food practices of the thousands of tribal groups, and an active promotion of vegetarianism through recommended dietary allowances and calorie requirements for the country, are again aculturation - sanskritisation.
Then there is the whole world of food taboos and the preparation and consumption of food. The classification of foods as hot and cold has its basis from Ayurvedic texts. Food was the cure, and to be consumed based on body types, seasons and emotional/social states. Widowed women often do not eat meat, onion and garlic in otherwise non-vegetarian Hindu households as they are 'hot' foods causing sexual heat!
The stronghold of caste is exerted on food like in no other aspect of life. Who cooks the food, and therefore, who can consume it, is determined by caste. Eating food cooked or touched by a person of the 'lower' caste will require elaborate (and often barbaric) rituals to sanctify the victim Brahman. Here food becomes the mode of purity and pollution.
Then, of course, there is the order of eating food - the patriarch and the men first, the children and then the women. Food now becomes the protector of patriarchy and social order.
Food today has perhaps become more "embellished" (to use my original term) than ever before. Its so much less of a basic necessesity today (with more economic abundance around), and so much more of everything else it could possibly ever be! Your knowledge and palate for gourmet and exotic cuisines determines your cool quotient; the dinner destination determines the fate of the date; and the 'ladies who lunch' thrives on exclusivity.
To think of it, food was the basis of imperialism - the spice trade is what tingled Europe's taste buds at first; and then it was food that has become the most powerful symbol of globalisation - in the form of the not-so-humble hamburger by omnipresent McDonalds.
With so much riding on it - from social status to faith, purity and love, kingdoms political and corporate, is it a surprise that food has to be embellished - it has to look irresistable...good enough to eat!
I valued you only when I bade you adieu
If I had another chance, I would've
