[Sca-cooks] Redaction - a little anthropology

[Edouard de Bruyerecourt]

Pulling off lurking cloak and pulling on anthro hat....

First, as another example, this discussion over the meaning of redact 
reminds me of an ongoing argument in an anthropology course in magic and 
witchcraft. Strictly it's own internal discussion , anthropology needs 
to clearly distinguish between such activity to help another (healing 
ills, protection, blessings, etc) and similar activity to cause harm 
(hexes, curses, etc). Again, strictly for internal clarity, the general 
use is "healing" for beneficial magic (since most practitioners simply 
refer to themselves as just 'healers') ,and "witchcraft" for negative 
intention. This offended almost all the followers of Wicca in the class, 
who responded to what they thought was anthropology labeling them as 
evil and bad. This wasn't the case. Anthropology refers to what Wicca 
does, or claims to do, as 'healing" while what a Satanic cult  might try 
is referred to as 'witchcraft." Within anthropology, "healing" and 
"witchcraft: are almost arbitrary labels to refer to a category of 
behaviour. It's only that Wiccans call themselves (witches) a term which 
as a different meaning to anthropologists. Same word, two meanings (and 
both legitimate internal to each); same activity, two labels for it.

We're arguing over which word is best for that activity we perform on 
very old recipes: redaction, interpretation, adaptation, translation. 
For myself, each is related to the others, but each has a distinction as 
well (as well as they all have multiple meanings for different contexts, 
like many English words).

Adaption usually means _changing_ it to fit better. My idea of 
adaptations are substituting ingredients from those difficult to find to 
similar and available, simulating meat roasted on a spit before a wood 
fire by roasting in a electric over plus a trick or two,  or increasing 
or decreasing servings.  I'll point out that a _translation_ is in a 
sense an _adaptation_ to a different language.

Translation, as I usually assume it means when used in our context, is 
changing from one language to another, either culturally or 
historically. This could be from German to English, or Middle English to 
Modern English. Or even from an old arcane unit of measure to a standard 
modern one.

Interpretation for me, since I come from a anthropological background, 
deals heavily with _meaning_, but it is a close cousin to translation 
(notice the use of  both 'translators' and 'interpreters' for the United 
Nations, and for ASL during speeches and plays). Generally, I think 
'translation' is more unidirectional: one translates a book into a 
second language rather than a back-and-forth exchange. And translation 
may be more literal, word-for-word, rather than actually convey the 
original meaning. Best example of that I can think of is a USAF pilot 
using the phrase "flying by the seat of his pants." The Russian 
translator came out with some description of operation the planes 
control panel by sitting on it.

I see redaction, as we use it on this list, and within the SCA cooking 
community in general, to primarily mean taking a historic document 
(recipe) and turning it into a usable form for our use.  And this 
involves translation, interpretation, and adaptation sometimes, either 
individually or collectively. First, we have to translate the old or 
foreign language form to (usually) modern English. And sometimes, the 
meaning of a particular word many have various interpretations for a 
choice of a modern word. At this point, we hopefully have (or can draw 
from the translation) a list of ingredients and a series of 
instructions. We may at this point need to adapt an ingredient for 
availability or adapt a technique to modern kitchen equipment.

I think were the significant difference for 'redaction' is when we 
assign quantities for the ingredients where they did not exist before. I 
dislike referring to that process as providing 'missing information' to 
the recipe. It wasn't missed by historic cooks, or it would shown up 
more often, in the same sense that Comedia del'Arte scripts aren't 
missing: they never existed and the performers had neither need or 
desire for them. Having been raised by a woman who eyeballed amounts a 
lot, and know to myself to cook by opening up the cupboards and looking 
for inspiration for what to throw into the mix, I like to think that 
historic cooks performed their avocation more by a well-practiced feel 
and a conceptual sense of cooking than many novice or household cooks 
today have. I've met enough modern cooks to just assume that all 
ingredients are inert and standardized, and thus can't respond to a 
variation in an ingredient by changing a recipe midstream.

In that sense, we are using our own personal experience and 
understanding of handling food to 'interpret' what medieval cooks did 
from an existing historic recipe that never included certain information 
and 'adapting' that recipe to a modern cooks expectations of a recipe. 
This is after we translate it into modern English.

Yes, translation, interpretation, and adaptation could all be used in 
place for 'redaction', but I think generally we use two or three of 
those concepts/activities when we 'redact' a recipe and choosing just 
one would refer to just a part of what we generally mean when we say 
'redact.'  Translation could mean nothing more than translating the 
language. Interpretation, probably the closed to 'redaction' in how we 
use them, still leans on meaning, which as not much to do with 
experimenting with quantities to find one we think works best. We can 
suggest (based on our personal interpretation) that the author meant how 
do something, but it's awkward to say that they meant "1 3/4 cups" 
Adaptation involves change towards a better fit, and there are times 
adaptation to modern ingredients and cooking methods don't seem to be 
necessary.  We may also be inadvertently adapting a recipe by different 
physical properties of medieval ingredients compared to modern ones. It 
may take a different amount of water to make a paste of the same 
thickness from stone milled wheat grown back then and there, and modern 
flour in the USA.

Anthropologically, words are merely symbols with a collectively agreed 
upon _assigned_ meaning. Within our context, we generally agree what 
meaning is meant with 'redact' even if the broader context of modern 
English speaking society as a different primary meaning. It wouldn't be 
the only word with a different primary meaning depending on which group 
is using it. "Period" is an excellent example. In the SCA, it's used as 
an adjective, to describe something that either existed in our own 
groups defined time of study or a modern artefact or behaviour that 
bears a close enough resemblance to something that did exist back then. 
I imagine the word is used by historical reenactment groups much like we 
do, with their own more narrow and precise time definition. But ask most 
people in US society "Is that period?" and they won't even understand 
the grammar/syntax, because it's not commonly used as a adjective.

With a swirl of the lurking cape, disappears...

-- 
Edouard, Sire de Bruyerecourt
bruyere at jeffnet.org
================================================================
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, 
while bad people will find a way around the laws." 
- Plato (427-347 B.C.)