Cultural rules determine every aspect of food consumption. Who eats together defines social units. For example, in some societies, the nuclear family is the unit that regularly eats together. The anth 题目和参考答案——青夏教育精英家教网—

题目内容

Cultural rules determine every aspect of food consumption. Who eats together defines social units. For example, in some societies, the nuclear family is the unit that regularly eats together. The anthropologist Mary Douglas has pointed out that, for the English, the kind of meal and the kind of food that is served relate to the kinds of social links between people who are eating together. She distinguishes between regular meals, Sunday meals when relatives may come, and cocktail parties for relatives and friends. The food served symbolizes the occasion and reflects who is present. For example, only snacks are served at a cocktail party. It would be inappropriate to serve a steak or hamburgers. The distinctions among cocktails, regular meals, and special dinners mark the social boundaries between those guests who are invited for drinks, those who are invited to dinner, and those who come to a family meal. In this example, the type of food symbolizes the category of guest and with whom it is eaten.

In some New Guinea societies, the nuclear family is not the unit that eats together. The men take their meals in a men's house, separately from their wives and children. Women prepare and eat their food in their own houses and take the husband's portion to the men's house. The women eat with their children in their own houses. This pattern is also widespread among Near Eastern societies.

Eating is a metaphor that is sometimes used to signify marriage. In many New Guinea societies, like that of the Lese on the island of New Ireland in the Pacific and that of the Trobriand Islanders, marriage is symbolized by the couple's eating together for the first time. Eating symbolizes their new status as a married couple. In U.S. society, it is just the reverse. A couple may go out to dinner on a first date.

Other cultural rules have to do with taboos against eating certain things. In some societies, members of a family group, arc not allowed to eat the animal or bird that is their ancestor. Since they believe themselves to be children of that ancestor, it would be like eating that ancestor or eating themselves.

There is also an association between food prohibitions and rank, which is found in its most extreme form in the caste (social class) system of India. A caste system consists of ranked groups, each with a different economic specialization. In India, there is an association between caste and the idea of pollution. Members of highly ranked groups can be polluted by coming into contact with the bodily secretions, particularly saliva（唾液）,of individuals of lower-ranked castes. Because of the fear of pollution, Brahmans and other high-ranked individuals will not share food with, not eat from the same plate as, not even accept food from an individual or from a low-ranking class.

1.According to the passage, who will NOT eat together?

A．The English during regular meals.

B．Americans on their first date.

C．Men and women in Near Eastern societies.

D．Newly-married people on the island of New Ireland.

2.In Paragraph 4, the underlined word "taboos" means _____________.

A．favors

B．prohibitions

C．hatred

D．gossips

3. According to the passage, eating together indicates all the following EXCEPT .

A．the type of food	B．social relations.
C．marital status	D．family ties.

4.What is the main idea of the passage?

A．Different kinds of food in western countries.

B． Relations between food and social units.

C． Symbolic meanings of different kinds of food.

D．Food consumption in different cultures.

【答案】

1.C

2.B

3.A

4.D

【解析】略

练习册系列答案

相关题目

We should take measures to p ________ some cultural r ________ for they r ________ our history and country.

President Clinton’s decision on Apr.8 to send Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji packing without an agreement on China’s entry into the World Trade Organization seemed to be a massive miscalculation. The President took a drubbing from much of the press, which had breathlessly reported that a deal was in the bag. The Cabinet and Whit House still appeared divided, and business leaders were characterized as furious over the lost opportunity. Zhu charged that Clinton lacked “the courage” to reach an accord. And when Clinton later telephoned the angry Zhu to pledge a renewed effort at negotiations, the gesture was widely portrayed as a flip-flop.

In fact, Clinton made the right decision in holding out for a better WTO deal. A lot more horse trading is needed before a final agreement can be reached. And without the Administration’s goal of a “bullet-proof agreement” that business lobbyists can enthusiastically sell to a Republican Congress, the whole process will end up in partisan acrimony that could harm relations with China for years.

THE HARD PART. Many business lobbyists, while disappointed that the deal was not closed, agree that better terms can still be had. And Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, National Economic Council Director Gene B. Sperling, Commerce Secretary William M. Daley, and top trade negotiator Charlene Barshefsky all advised Clinton that while the Chinese had made a remarkable number of concessions, “we’re not there yet,” according to senior officials.

Negotiating with Zhu over the remaining issues may be the easy part. Although Clinton can signal U.S. approval for China’s entry into the WTO himself, he needs Congress to grant Beijing permanent most-favored-nation status as part of a broad trade accord. And the temptation for meddling on Capital Hill may prove over-whelming. Zhu had barely landed before Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss) declared himself skeptical that China deserved entry into the WTO. And Senators Jesse A. Helms (R-N.C.) and Emest F. Hollings (D-S. C.) promised to introduce a bill requiring congressional approval of any deal.

The hidden message from these three textile-state Southerners: Get more protection for the U. S. clothing industry. Hoping to smooth the way, the Administration tried, but failed, to budge Zhu on textiles. Also left in the lurch: Wall Street, Hollywood, and Detroit. Zhu refused to open up much of the lucrative Chinese securities market and insisted on “cultural” restrictions on American movies and music. He also blocked efforts to allow U. S. auto makers to provide fleet financing.

BIG JOB. Already, business lobbyists are blanketing Capitol Hill to presale any eventual agreement, but what they’ve heard so far isn’t encouraging. Republicans, including Lott, say that “the time just isn’t right” for the deal. Translation: We’re determined to make it look as if Clinton has capitulated to the Chinese and is ignoring human, religious, and labor rights violations; the theft of nuclear-weapons technology; and the sale of missile parts to America’s enemies. Beijing’s fierce critics within the Democratic Party, such as Senator Paul D. Wellstone of Minnesota and House Minority leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, won’t help, either.

Just how tough the lobbying job on Capitol Hill will be become clear on Apr. 20, when Rubin lectured 19chief executives on the need to discipline their Republican allies. With business and the White House still trading charges over who is responsible for the defeat of fast-track trade negotiating legislation in 1997, working together won’t be easy. And Republicans—with a wink—say that they’ll eventually embrace China’s entry into the WTO as a favor to Corporate America. Though not long before they torture Clinton. But Zhu is out on a limb, and if Congress overdoes the criticism, he may be forced by domestic critics to renege. Business must make this much dear to both its GOP allies and the Whit House: This historic deal is too important to risk losing to any more partisan squabbling

1. The main idea of this passage is

[A]. The Contradiction between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

[B]. On China’s entry into WTO.

[C]. Clinton was right.

[D]. Business Lobbyists Control Capitol Hill.

2. What does the sentence “Also left in the lurch: Wall Street, Hollywood, Detroit” convey?

[A]. Premier Zhu rejected their requirements.

[B]. The three places overdid criticism.

[C]. They wanted more protection.

[D]. They are in trouble.

3. What was the attitude of the Republican Party toward China’s entry into the WTO?

[A]. Contradictory. [B].Appreciative.

[C]. Disapproving. [D]. Detestful.

4. Who plays the leading part in the deal in America?

[A]. White House . [B]. Republicans.

[C]. The Democratic Party. [D]. Businessmen.

5. It can be inferred from the passage that

[A]. America will make concessions.

[B]. America will hold out for a better WTO

[C]. Clinton has the right to signal U. S. approval for China’s entry.

[D]. Democratic party approve China’s entry into the WTO.