The Culturally Modified Indigenous Hand: Adaptations For Cutting Skills From The Field To The Smokehouse To The Kitchen. (original) (raw)
n this presentation I looked at the adaptation of cutting tools and hence physical adaptations that are required to adjust to different types of cutting technology for every day household and also country food production. The purpose of this exploration was to interrogate the issueof specialty equipment and the issues of sustainability that we face with respect to material good production and explore other ways of assessing our needs.I see this presentation speaking to issues of sustainability, consumer science, as well as traditional tool use and ergonomics for women in food production environments.I began with research on knives at the industrial and home kitchen level in terms of standards and adaptation of the arm, forearm, cutting surface, etc. I then draw on my own experience with household and country food production and the difference in adaptations required of the hand, arm, and shoulder for cutting across a range of activities.Cutting foods appropriately is a skill that women are expected to achieve. In Germany it usedto be a hallmark of womanhood if she could cut rye bread straight and thin. In most indigenous cultures knife skills are valued. Coming of age ceremonies of a Canadian Indigenous culture for girls featuring two teachings about cutting tools were discussed complete with the traditional origins and their material adaptations. Comparable tool use in the home economics curriculum was also interrogated. 12Proceedings of the Canadian Symposium XIII: Issues and Directions in Home Economics / Family Studies / Human Ecology Education, Winnipeg, MB, February 27-28 and March 1, 2015I raise this to the level of logic that challenges the need for specialty items as compared to the tools we adapt ourselves to as means of reducing physical stress through ergonomic adaptation. And in particular whether there are tools for women that might be differently adapted than for men based in biomechanics. This research continues to be in progress as newquestions are evoked.Editor’s CommentsWe view this work as a study of women and the material culture of food with specific attention to the ulu knife. The ulu knife, also knownby other descriptors depending on the geographic and culture location, is commonly referred to as a “women’s knife”. Its history is not well documented but evidence of the ulu has been linked to the Viking Era in Scandinavia and Europe and to many indigenous cultures pre-contact. What was unique about this knife is its shape -designed to ensure that the force is centered more over the middle of the blade than is typical in an ordinary knife. This makes it easier to use because it creates twice the direct downward force ofordinary knives. The ingenious ergonomic design makes slicing, chopping and other uses more comfortable. Ulus were created in many sizes, small ones for young girls to imitate their elders, small and medium sizes for cutting hair, clothing construction (a forerunner of the rotary cutter?) and fine cutting, and large ones for large fish and butcheringmeat sources. We live in an era where the “chef’s knife” is often the prized tool in the kitchen. It is time to “interrogate” (to use Atleo’s term) the tools and technology that are used and promoted in Home Economics (Human Ecology/Family Studies/Family and Consumer Science). Have we explored with students the social, historical, cultural heritage and significance of the tools used? Why in a field that has been dominated by women, are we not familiar with the “women’s knife”? What has contributed to its loss? (Colonialism? Corporatecapitalism? Patriarchy? Cultural Genocide?). Often losses like this generate culinary and other cultural consequences that may be too deep to immediately fathom. When we lose part of “who we are, how we live, and the world we inhabit” we lose part of our social system, our connection to the places we call home, our traditional values, our sense of identity, our history. Often these are “invisible losses” that are not generallyrecognized or seen as important (Turner, Gregory, Brooks, Failing, & Satterfield, 2008). This research will contribute to more complex interpretations of the artifacts of “women’s work”.We look forward to its completion.