Commensal Peacebuilding Draft 10

Running head: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMENSALITY, DIPLOMACY, AND PCR 1

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, Peace-building and Conflict Resolution

Edwin Clamp

Eastern Mennonite University

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 2

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, Peace-building

and Conflict Resolution

Introduction Commensality, the practice of sharing a meal, is a universal practice that transcends time, space and

cultures. Eating is one of our most primal acts other than sex and violence. As a universally primal

praxis it has profound physical, emotional, spiritual, relational, and cultural implications that should be

considered by practitioners of peace-building and conflict resolution (PCR). It seems only natural that

this venue for interplay between action, emotion, religion, and conflicting cultures and religions, which

are the same factors that drive conflict, should be explored as forum for peace and reconciliation.

In this paper I will examine commensality and its relationship with diplomatic activities. I will examine it

using a diplomatic lens, mainly due to the fact that the small existing body of literature on this subject

uses this paradigm. Although there are differences between diplomacy and PCR, I am referencing and

choosing to focus on both. Whether considering diplomacy and PCR as overlapping fields, or PCR as a

subset of diplomacy, I am interested in their shared objectives of promoting peace and reconciling

conflict. Since I am viewing the subject through the lens of a multitrack diplomatic framework I tend

towards the use the nomenclature of diplomacy. However, it would be equally as viable to evaluate the

subject and describe it using paradigms from PCR studies, anthropology, sociology, or psychology.

I will start my examination with track one diplomacy, which is transacted on a diplomat-to-diplomat

level. The unidirectional diplomat-to-people message, known as track two diplomacy, will be examined

in the context of commensality and its implications for PCR. I will then consider track three, defined as

interpersonal diplomacy between non-state actors. Exploring track three at a deeper level than tracks one

and two, I will analyze this third construct using a histographic framework. I will discuss premodern and

postmodern societies, as well as situations where pre and postmodern societies interact, which I term

transmodern. Finally, I will explore and critique the nominal psychological and sociological frameworks

of the interpersonal contact hypothesis and communication infrastructure theory, which the leading

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 3 authors on this subject propose as a way to understand the mechanisms of commensality in PCR

activities. I will demonstrate that neither theory is a good model for understanding how commensal

practices relate to the three strata of diplomacy and how they function. Finally I will propose the need for

further scholarship followed by field research to elucidate how commensal diplomacy might be used by

the practitioners of the PCR arts.

Track One: Culinary Diplomacy By far the most formal and organized interplay between PCR activities and food is found on the

diplomatic level between state-actors like ambassadors, ministers, and heads-of-state. Commonly termed

culinary-diplomacy it is considered a track one diplomatic

tool (Rockower, forthcoming; USIP 2011). This track uses

the culinary arts to further policy objectives. Track one

diplomacy, according to the United States Institutes of Peace,

is for “official discussions typically involving high-level

political and military leaders focusing on cease-fires, peace

talks, and treaties and other agreements (USIP, 2011).”

Although diplomatic work at this level is complex and occurs

in many different venues and on different levels,

commensality features heavily in practice and has significant

symbolism. Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, a

French diplomat renowned for his craftiness and his ability to prosper during the turbulent Napoleonic

and Revolutionary years said “give me a good cook and I’ll give you a good treaty…when people share

good things around a table, conversation gets easier (Charles Maurice, 2014; The members, 2014).”

There is an entire cadre of professionals devoted to supporting track one culinary diplomacy. French

tradition in this elite field has been strong and is still clearly evident just as it is in the broader diplomatic

world. The Club des Chefs des Chefs, the most exclusive organization of culinary diplomacy, only

Figure 1 The entire Club des Chefs des Chefs outside the Plaza Athénée, Paris. (Sciolino, 2014)

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 4 admits one member per country and only has twenty members. Each member has to be the personal chef

to the head-of-state or if there is no head of state then the executive chef for the venue hosting state

receptions (The members, 2014). World leaders look to these Chefs des Chefs as significant allies in the

effort to advance their diplomatic agendas. Francoise Hollande recently said to a gathering of Club des

Chef des Chefs “If you make a mess of the meal, diplomacy becomes a lot more difficult (translated)

(Club des Chefs, 2014)” and Prince Albert of Monaco said to the same group “[your food] creates a

situation that makes conversation possible (The World’s, 2014).” However, dominance of French

traditions in US culinary diplomacy is starting to diminish, mostly through the actions of an apparent

closet-foodie, Hillary Clinton. Pierre Chambrin, a traditional French Chef and Executive Chef at the

White House in 1994, was asked to resign by Hillary, ostensibly so that the Clintons could eat lighter,

American fare (Murros, 1994). Later, in 2012, Hillary, soon to depart her role as Secretary of State,

launched one of her signature diplomatic initiatives, the American Chefs Corps. The purpose for the

Chefs Corps is to use a team of American celebrity chefs to showcase American cuisine through culinary

diplomacy (U.S. Department of State, 2012). In addition to working track one events, Clinton assigned

them the role of being gastronomic diplomats to the masses, which I will define later as track two

diplomacy. Clinton clearly found diplomatic significance in commensality because another track two

initiative, from Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, was the clean cookstove campaign (Myers, 2012).

She tied cookstoves to Women’s rights in partnership with the United Nations Foundation. Her goal of

providing 100 million clean burning cookstoves to women around the world was something that was on

her agenda with almost every world leader she met (Global Alliance, 2013). Clearly, commensality has

tremendous significance for track one diplomats.

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 5

State Dinner with Nehru and Ayub Kahn An intriguing paper, “Diplomatic Gastronomy: Style and Power at the Table,” by culinary historian Linda

Morgan, gives a rare glimpse into the high stakes work of culinary diplomacy (2012). In 1961, John F.

Kennedy, who had just been sworn in as the 35th President of the United States, used commensality as a

tool to manage the intense rivalry between

Pakistan and India and to try interfere with

India’s nascent relationship to Russia. The

story is a litany of diplomatic maneuvering,

subterfuge, and strategy that culminated in

two diplomatic dinners that had tremendous

geopolitical symbolism for the world at the

height of the Cold War. Pakistan, an alley

of the United States was worried that the

US, in trying to coax India away from closer ties with Russia, would not afford them the full benefit of

their privileged allied relationship vis-à-vis the concessions they were making to their neighbor. Pakistan

pressed the new administration for an official visit and reception as a way of affirming to the world their

strategic alliance. President Mohammed Ayub Kahn of Pakistan got his wishes granted and was given a

grand fete at Mount Vernon. Moving the location of such a large diplomatic dinner from the White

House to a rural setting, which was unprecedented, created tremendous headaches for all involved, but

this only added to the prestige Pakistan received from the affair. Beyond logistical challenges, the main

challenge that the superlative conviviality shown to Pakistan presented, was then how to receive the

Indian delegation a couple of months later. To provide Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru with a

state reception equal to Ayub Kahn’s would have undone the progress that had been made in appeasing

Islamabad. Yet, Nehru had to be sufficiently wooed to bring him into the US fold. Keeping India from

cementing relations with Russia during the height of the Cold War was of tremendous geo-political

Figure 2.State dinner in honor of President Mohammad Ayub Khan of Pakistan. Several unidentified men setting tables in marquee. Mount Vernon, Virginia. Abbie Rowe. White House Photographs

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 6 importance to the United States. Nehru was an enigmatic figure, a disciple of Mahatma Gandhi, he

feigned simplicity, yet as a Cambridge educated barrister he delighted in the hedonism of the haute

cuisine and culture of Europe. The Kennedy administration made a play to his false humility by

extending a diplomatic invitation and remarking that JFK hoped the visit “could be made with [a]

measure of informality” and thus avoid the “aspect of medieval splendor that was coming to characterize

official journeys in modern democracies

(Morgan, 2012).” The invitation was accepted,

but Nehru knew that he had the challenge of

trying to turn a diminutive invitation into

leverageable diplomatic advantage. Skillfully,

Nehru used a diplomatic working lunch, prior to

the dinner, to put Kennedy on the defensive by

stymieing conversation. Wishing to avoid the

considerable discomfort this would have created

at the dinner, JFK became acquiescent to Nehru’s interpersonal lead. At dinner Nehru took the

postprandial ritual of coffee and cigars that an official state dinner would not have afforded him and

turned it into “ad hoc meeting of administration heavyweights” which he skillfully worked late into the

night. Nehru came away looking like a master powerbroker in the international press. Kennedy later

called the evening “a disaster (Morgan, 2012)” in terms of advancing his diplomatic agenda. Morgan

makes the case that commensality acquires the symbolic function of messaging (Morgan, 2012).

“Commensal partners (host and guests, or even two strangers sharing a table in a cafe) send and receive

communications that denote perceived power or equality, importance, and position (Morgan, 2012).” The

fact that the success of the diplomatic missions of these two respective nations was subjectively measured

by the world press by the symbolic messaging of commensality, and not objectively by evaluating gains

or concessions from treaties or bilateral agreements, speaks to the symbolic importance of sharing the

Figure 3 (L-R) Jacqueline Kennedy, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira

Gandhi, John F. Kennedy. Since the dinner was “informal” no other photographic records of the dinner remain other than this photo. Abbie Rowe. White House Photographs.

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 7 table in diplomacy. Kennedy’s diplomatic failure, in the case of Nehru, also speaks powerfully to the

dangers of underplaying the importance of a meal. By minimizing the meaning of sharing a meal together

Kennedy not only forced Nehru into a position where he had to save face, but unwittingly gave him the

opportunity to do so.

Track Two: Gastrodiplomacy Gastrodiplomacy is a much newer field of food related diplomacy. Track one, culinary diplomacy, has a

very precise target audience, for example a head-of-state, and a specific goal of furthering the diplomatic

agenda. Gastrodiplomacy, which is track two, has a much broader audience and goals. Paul Rockower,

one of two authors to write specifically about gastrodiplomacy defines it as “using a country’s culinary

delights as a way to conduct public diplomacy and a way to raise nation-brand awareness (Rockower,

forthcoming).” The focus of gastrodiplomacy is to boost a nation’s soft-power; its ability to influence

through attraction instead of coercion. It is a subset of cultural diplomacy that includes other arts like

music, cinema, theater and dance. As a form of public diplomacy it is considered track two, which I

define as state and non-state actors working to shape a foreign public’s opinion. It is more of a

unidirectional public relation campaign rather than a bidirectional dialog.

Kitchen to the World

The first recognized example of gastrodiplomacy was initiated in 2002 by the government of Thailand

with its “Thai Kitchen to the World” project (Varanyanond, 2013). This pioneering effort was really an

astute pairing of economic development policy with public diplomacy. Following the 1997 Asian

financial crisis, caused by the financial collapse of the Thai baht and the financial contagion that

followed, Thailand was in desperate need of foreign currency and export revenue (1997 Asian Financial

Crisis, 2014). Fortuitously, it was in the position of having a strong agricultural sector and a rich culinary

heritage which business tycoon turned Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, used to his full advantage.

He tasked his diplomatic core with supporting the development of agricultural foreign markets (Ex-

Envoy, 2006). The strategy formulated by the diplomatic corps was to promote engagement with Thai

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 8 culture though the promotion of Thai cuisine, mostly through supporting Thai restaurants. The ambitious

goal was to boost the number of Thai restaurants globally from 5,500 to 8,000 in one year (Rockower,

forthcoming). This was done through funding, to the order of 500 million baht per annum, approximately

$19 million in today’s money (Inflation

Calculator, 2014). This money was

allocated for the development of value

added Thai culinary products, such as spice

blends, financing for new foreign

restaurants, eased export rules, and

facilitation for foreign importers along with

a host of other measures. As of 2009 there

were more than 13,000 Thai restaurants

globally, and as of 2013 agricultural

revenue was up 80% to more than three billion dollars a year, with very strong future growth projections

(Varanyanond, 2013). Furthermore, Thai cuisine is now the 4th most recognizable global cuisine

(Sunanta, 2005). A recent CNN poll ranking the world’s most delicious foods placed a Thai dish,

Massaman Curry, as number one (CNN Travel, 2012). The payoff for Thailand for its visionary approach

to projecting soft-power is reflected in June 2014 article in The Diplomat. Despite having “systemic

social and economic problems,” such as political violence and an ongoing insurgency, Thailand is still

viewed positively across many different criteria (The Diplomat, 2014). A World Bank survey on the ease

of doing business internationally ranked Thailand 18th, alongside Canada and Germany, no small feat for

a country that just had a coup d’état (World Bank, 2014). In his book, War Front to Store Front, Paul

Brinkley repeatedly makes the point that for peace to prevail in nations with a tumultuous history, which

Thailand certainly has, economic development, facilitated by foreign trade, must take place. He goes on

to powerfully make the point that such trade and resulting development can only take place when the

Figure 4 Thailand's Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra adds chili to a

traditional Thai dish next to David Thompson, an Australian chef, during the "Thai Kitchen to the World" event in central Sydney May 27, 2012 (Xinhaunet, 2012).

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 9 international perception of the country improves (Brinkley, 2014). Gastrodiplomacy effectively presented

Thailand in a different light to the rest of the world. Instead of been repelled by connotations of juntas

and massacres, they were attracted by the smell of Tom Yam Goong and Massaman Curry. This is a

profound precedent given the neighborhood Thailand resides in and the millions of lives lost and trillions

of dollars that have been wasted in the last century trying to achieve the similar ends of stable capitalism

in the region. In agrarian societies, conflict is often driven by economic disparity. Bringing prosperity to

the agricultural workers through promotion of their product is necessary for restoring peace.

The dual success Thailand had with its “Thai Kitchen to the World” project, first elevating the nation

brand and second substantially stimulating a once rural economy into a value-added regional powerhouse,

did not go unnoticed by other middle powers. Middle powers are countries that, while not small, don’t

have the resources to engage in super-power style diplomacy. In 2009 South Korea set aside forty

million dollars to fund its “Korean Cuisine to the World (Rockower, forthcoming)” Headed by first Lady

Kim Yoon-Ok, Korea’s program is generally modeled after the Thai prototype, but with a few updates to

accommodate for changing times, such as financing for food-trucks as well as restaurants (Rockower,

forthcoming). Thus far they have been achieving equally impressive results in shaping public opinion in

favor of the Korean nation brand. South Korea which has a long history of conflict with its neighbors,

particularly the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Japan, has benefited from gastrodiplomacy in

its reconciliation efforts. Ketterer, in her article “Love Goes through the Stomach,” discusses the

contribution of food related practices to the post conflict reconciliation between Japan and Korea

(Ketterer, 2014). This initiative, termed Koinonia, used commensality to “create the spatio-temporal

conditions necessary to mitigate successfully situations that may otherwise be characterized by

misunderstandings, animosity and an unwillingness to move beyond dividing lines (Ketterer, 2014)."

Koinonia demonstrated that gastrodiplomacy practice has the ability to successfully influence the

reconciliation process. This initiative provided people traumatized by conflict to find a symbolic venue

and process, that of sharing a meal together, that led to an easier path to reconciliation.

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 10 South Korea has not been the only country to jump onto this food truck so to speak. Taiwan, Malaysia

and Peru have all put their money where their mouth is and committed substantial sums to

gastrodiplomacy campaigns. The success of gastrodiplomacy is so resounding that even the superpowers

are getting into the act. The aforementioned US Diplomatic Chef Corps does double duty as a track two

player in promoting America’s uniquely postmodernist fusion gastronomy abroad. China is using

gastrodiplomacy as an adjunct to some more traditional soft-power techniques, like foreign investment, in

Asia, Africa and Latin America as a way to assuage opposition to its neocolonialism and project its

ascendency to developing nations (Rockower, forthcoming).

Clearly food has a voice that crosses cultural lines with surprising clarity and effectiveness. As Rockower

says, adapting the ancient proverb about a way to a man’s heart; Food “wins hearts and minds through

stomachs (forthcoming).” Paul Brinkley eloquently and powerfully advances that argument that winning

hearts and minds through this type of soft-power projection is infinitely more productive in both building

peace and reconciling conflicts than orthodox approaches to winning hearts and minds by project hard-

power with “boots on the ground.”

Track Three: Commensal Diplomacy The most ubiquitous, but supposedly most diminutive type of diplomacy is track three; which are

activities and communications that take place between non-state actors. These non-state actors can

literally be anyone from members of a caste, village elders, activists, religious leaders or even soccer

moms. I coin the term because it is the practice of sharing a meal, commensality, between ordinary

people that is the hall mark of this level of diplomacy. I would argue that multitrack classifications of

diplomacy, of which there are several versions, are all constructed from the perspective of career

diplomats and thus reflect a biased opinion of what track is most important in the context of PCR. In

fairness to diplomats, some conflicts, such as the one between Pakistan and India are geopolitically

instigated and therefore track one diplomacy is germane to the PCR process. However emergent schools

of thought, as espoused by the likes of Paul Brinkley, turn the diplomacy pyramid on its head, revealing

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 11 the need for inclusion of track three practices in resolution of problems instigated by track one players.

Albert Einstein put it perfectly when he said “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of

thinking that created them.” This can be clearly demonstrated by the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks,

carried out by Pakistani members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, against the Indian city of Mumbai. The impetus for

getting into terrorism, as described by the surviving terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasav, did not originate from

geopolitical or religious ideologies, but from the crushing daily realities of poverty. India Times recounts

that the pivotal moment in Kasav’s journey towards terror was an argument with his impoverished father,

who struggled to provide sustenance to his family, that they weren’t able to reconcile (Captured Terrorist,

2008). It is hard to reconcile over a meal when there isn’t food on the table. In such a case it is easy to

see how track one, two, and three could have worked in harmony to prevent the senseless murder of 164

people in Mumbai. Track one could have deescalated the government rhetoric polarizing Indo-Pakistani

relations, track two could have provided Kasav’s father with economic opportunity which could have

been parlayed into a track three process of reconciling over a hearty meal. I suggest that interpersonal

strife whether on an individual or group level is the base unit of conflict. The currency of these individual

transactions are physical, emotional, spiritual, relational, and cultural constructs, which in conflict and

subsequent PCR efforts play out like a balance sheet of credits and debits. I propose that commensal

diplomacy, since it is denominated in the same affective units, provides an essential tool in PCR

practitioner’s toolboxes by which they can balance accounts between conflicting parties. In such a

proposition, commensal diplomacy can be understood to be the transformation of destructive relationships

into constructive ones by mutually partaking of the ritual of eating together.

Track three commensal practice is highly contextual. Most afore mentioned constructs (emotional,

spiritual, etc.) are so complex that it is far beyond the scope of this paper to tease them apart. However,

in an effort to begin to elucidate the breadth of commensality’s applicability within different contexts I

have chosen to examine it through a histographic lens. In particular I rely of the common historical

conceptualization of premodern and postmodern and borrow from philosophy the idea of transmodernism

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 12 (Modern History, 2008). In a premodern culture a person’s sense of self is often expressed through faith

or greater connectivity to the community around them (Griffin, 1990). Many cultures in the world, such

as the tribal culture in Afghanistan, are still considered premodern. Premodernists lack a concept of

individualism, which is characterized as a distinctive trait of postmodernist self-conception.

Postmodernism, developed out of the thought processes of the French and scientific revolutions, led the

collective consciousness away from God and community and toward self-knowledge and self-

determination. The hyper-individualistic culture of the US is the leading example of postmodernism.

Transmodernism, as conceived for this paper, is simply the interaction of an individual or group with a

fundamentally premodern worldview with another individual or group with a postmodern worldview.

Premodern Commensal Diplomacy If you look at any of the world’s great historical texts you will find innumerable permutations of

commensality interwoven with other great themes of humanity. Roy Strong, in his book, Feast: A grand

History of Eating, details the practices and significance of feasting from the ancient cultures of Greece

and Babylon, through the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and into our modern times. He makes the case that,

in each of the great epochs, the feast took on a profound archetypal meaning (Strong, 2002). Who was

invited, who wasn’t, where attendants were seated relative to each other, what was served, how people

behaved, and countless other facets of the feast had powerful connotations of status, power, relationship,

obligation, and reconciliation. Unfortunately the quotidian aspects of commensality have largely been

lost to the sands of time, so an examination of premodern commensality must largely rely on the concept

of the feast, which tended to be significant enough to have been memorialized.

Jacob L. Wright’s work “Commensal Politics in Ancient Western Asia” carefully documents how

commensality was “one of the most popular means to promote internal cohesions and forge external

alliances, either as a way of avoiding military conflict or as a prelude to warring against a third party

(Wright, 2010).” He demonstrates that a commensal “prelude to war” was often an attempt to assert

authority over a vassal in order to prevent open hostility. Feasts were “not simply epiphenomenal

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 13 reflections of changes in culture and society, but central arenas of social action that had a profound impact

of the course of historical transformations (Wright, 2010).” Commensality was the central construct of

ancient diplomacy.

Shalom Biblical texts give numerous examples of commensality as a peace and reconciliation mechanism.

Genesis 26:17-31 tells the story of Abimelech, who along with his advisor and the commander of his

army came to make peace with Isaac. The two patriarchs had quarreled over water rights several times

before. “Isaac then made a feast for them, and they ate and drank. Early the next morning the men swore

an oath to each other. Then Isaac sent them on their way, and they went away peacefully (Genesis 26:17-

31 NIV).” The account of David’s tumultuous life offers multiple examples of his use of mensal practices

as an alliance and peace-building strategy. Following Saul’s suicide, there was a period of war between

the House of Saul and the House of David. When Abner, Saul’s cousin, commander-in-chief of Saul’s

army, de facto powerbroker in the Saul’s clan, and David’s ardent adversary, sent word that he wanted to

meet, David responded by preparing a feast (2 Samuel 3:30). Unfortunately, Joab, David’s nephew and

the commander of his army, had a blood feud with Abner. He used the opportunity afforded by David’s

feast to slay Abner. However, David used commensal praxis to once again build peace with the House of

Saul by granting Mephibosheth, Saul’s disabled grandson, a permanent place at this table. It was not

uncommon for newly enthroned rulers to murder all possible heirs to the prior throne. David was no

stranger to wholesale murder because “whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or

woman alive (1 Samuel 27:9),” but instead he chose to use the significance of the shared table to

incorporate the house of Saul into the house of David, ending the feud by making Mephibosheth “like one

of his own sons (2 Samuel 9:11).” Clearly commensality was David’s preferred strategy for

reconciliation.

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 14 Mathew 26:26-30 is perhaps the most archetypal commensal reconciliation account to be found in history.

It has led to the communion ritual of forgiveness being performed by hundreds of millions of Christians

on a regular basis for over two millennia. It profundity needs almost no explanation.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it

to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and when he had

given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the

covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Christ used not only the setting, but also the practice of eating and drinking as the symbolic mechanism

by which reconciliation between God and man is achieved.

Ancient Middle Eastern Artifacts

Wright, through an examination of glyptic art from Western Asia, draws the poignant conclusion that just

as war and peace are inseparable concepts, peace and feasts we likewise inseparable concepts for the

ancients. The artifact known as the Standard of Ur is a 4,500 year-old, inlaid, irregularly shaped wooden

box. On each of the two major panels there are scenes of war and peace, and as such they have been

called the war panel and the peace panel. The peace panel could just have well been called the feast panel

because it depicts a banquet scene along with all of the requisite preparations. It is remarkable because “it

attests to the

consciousness of two connected yet still distinct moments (and manners) of rule (Wright, 2010).” A 9th

century bas-relief ivory from Nimrud shows an Assyrian King armed with a sword and flanked by two

armed body guards feasting with unarmed vassals. The raised glasses of the King and vassals indicate

that it was a victory feast, similar to the one between David and Abner. Although such a victory feast,

including both the conqueror and the conquered, may seem foreign to us, the implications of a tradition of

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 15 pragmatic and expedient peace and reconciliation has profound implications for our culture which is

Figure 5 The upper register depicts a royal banquet. The ruler, wearing a kilt composed of tufts of wool, is shown larger in scale than the others—the center of attention. The other banqueters, who wear plain-fringed kilts, face him and raise their cup

embroiled in an intractable, unwinnable war in the Middle East.

Transmodern Commensal Diplomacy References that we find to commensal peace-building in the antiquities provide us with context by which

we can understand the significance of commensality as a human ritual. This significance transcends time

and isn’t just a historical footnote. Nowhere can the transcendent ritualistic significance be better seen

than at the shearing transmodern rift between contemporary premodern and postmodern societies. I use

the term transmodernism dualistically. The simplistic connotation of the term transmodernism is that

commensality as a compulsory, primal human ritual, transcends the chasm between premodern and

postmodern worldviews. However, I also include the connotations of transmodernism as defined by the

Argentine philosopher and liberation theologian Enrique Dussel. According to his framing of

transmodernism, it honors and reverences antiquity and traditional lifestyles and places; criticizes the

rejection of worldviews as false or of no importance; and fosters avant-garde philosophies like

inclusiveness, sustainability, and ecology (Transmodernism, 2014).

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 16

The Kayabi A stark example of the transcendence between a premodern culture and a postmodern one is Suzanne

Oakdale’s research on commensality’s central role in the acculturation of the Amazonian Kayabi to a

non-indigenous society (Oakdale, 2008). The Kayabi encountered non-indigenous persons (Brazilians) in

the late 1800’s and by the early 1900’s there was some nominal level of interaction. However, continuing

encroachment of Kayabi land, due to the rubber boom, led to open, lethal conflict in the 1920’s. Rubber

was a unique raw material in that it could not

be grown in plantations and therefore had to

be gathered from the rain forests inhabited by

the Kayabi by widely roving tappers.

Understandably a major focus of the Brazilian

rubber barons was on the pacification of

indigenous peoples. Oakdale clearly

documents from historical writings the fact

that the Kayabi sought manufactured goods,

particularly metal goods from the interlopers

they encountered. This led to the orthodox doctrine that giving these modern tools to the indigenous

peoples was the primary mechanism of pacification. Outpost residents and Jesuit missionaries gave the

Kayabi metal goods like axes and knives. A first encounter vignette talks of a group of Kayabi men who

swim across a river to an outpost. The outpost residents give them flints, axes and knives, which the

Kayabi secured to their bodies before swimming across the river. As they are leaving they said to the

outpost residents “We are going enemy!” Due to the language barrier this message was lost on the

residents. Shortly thereafter every one of the residents of the outpost was murdered, probably with the

axes and knives they had given the Kayabi. Clearly material good had no significance in terms of

building relationships.

Figure 6 The Kayabi still in conflict over natural resources and land.

Representatives of the Kayapó, Kayabi, Apiaká, Rikbatska, Enawê-nawe, and other indigenous groups at the Earth Summit in Rio, 2012. Credit: Brent Millikan/International Rivers (Grist, 2012)

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 17 Oakdale’s careful documentation of the autobiographical narratives of the elderly Kayabi elucidates the

dynamics of this and subsequent encounters. Manufactured goods were sought out, but they were

inanimate objects which didn’t impart anything fundamentally new to their lives. All that the flints,

knives and axes did was allow them to do what they were already doing faster. In their premodern society

efficiency didn’t have the same meaning as it does in our postmodern society. The “talks of the old ones”

describing their first-encounters with Brazilians, emphasized the value of eating together with the

Brazilians as a transformative process, allowing the relationship to move from enemies to something akin

to relatives. The Kayabi, and other Amazonian people groups, have a different conception of personhood

from our postmodernistic individualism. This concept, termed dividualism, also found in other cultures

such as Melanesia and India, relates to the composite nature of personhood (Hess, 2006; Smith, 2012).

Dividulism believes that bodies are open to the influence and incorporation of other person’s qualities.

Dividualistic transformations occur through close personal contact such as sex, living together, body

painting, tattooing and piercing, and notably, eating together. Oakdale relates another first-encounter

narrative (Oakdale, 2008):

Time passed. Kayabi came again. Then two Kayabi stayed. They yelled to the whites [from

across the river], ‘Sirs, are you here?’ Then the chief [of the post] went to look. ‘We are here

again. We want a boat’, [they said]. Then he took the canoe over to them. He docked the canoe.

The white chief said to them, ‘Let’s go [to the post], you can eat’ Then the Kayabi got in the

canoe and took it to this side [of the river]. The ones who were named Maijepeja, Jewyra’uyp,

and Upiri in Kayabi all went to sleep on the other side with the chief [of the post]. They went.

The whites gave them food. They didn’t want to eat it so the whites made them porridge. They

just ate porridge.

Upon returning to their village some months later the following incident was recounted.

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 18

[Maijepeja, Jewyra’uyp, and Upiri] came and stood in front of the house. Those inside came to

see them. [They from inside asked,] ‘Who are you?’ ‘Who are you?’ [another asked] ‘Why, it is

us. We are still alive! Why are you screaming at us?’, they said to them. ‘We are just asking,

“Who are you?” ’ ‘It’s us, ourselves. We went over to the other side. We were with them’.

Clearly from the unpacified Kayabi’s point of view such a radical dividualistic transformation

had taken place that Maijepeja, Jewyra’uyp, and Upiri were rendered unrecognizable. This

transformation was attributed, by the Kayabi, to eating with the Brazilians. From a modern perspective

acculturation had taken place that allowed the Kayabi to reconcile with the interlopers. Throughout

Oakdale’s retelling of autobiographical narratives it is obvious that commensality plays a central role in

process of establishing peace and reconciliation between those transmodern cultures.

Sulha Perhaps one of the most dangerous of contemporary transmodern fault lines is the seemingly

irreconcilable and intractable Israeli Palestinian conflict. Gellman and Vuinovich explore the traditional

Arabic ritual of sulha and its implications of restorative justice and peace-building (2008). Irani and Funk

define sulha as referring to a “ritualized process of restorative justice and peacemaking and to the actual

outcome or condition sealed by the process (Irani

& Funk, 2001).” Interestingly, while sulha is

presented as an Arabic practice it is noted that not

only do Muslim, Christian and Druze embrace and

share the practice, they are often specifically

invited into the process by Arabs as arbiters of

disputes due to their moralistic differences from

the disputants (Gellman & Vuinovich, 2008).

Sulha is actually composed of three elements, jaha, hodna, and sulha, with the latter being most

important. When an offence that might result in violent retribution, such as murder, takes place the

Figure 7 Old guards Avraham Shapira and Sheikh Abdullah

Mansour during Sulha held following the mass slaughter of Kafr Qasim, where Israeli Border Police massacred 49 Arab civilians in 1956. (Wikipedia, 2014)

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 19 aggressor will petition the aggrieved household to seek reconciliation. However, the aggressor cannot do

this directly, and instead has to form a group of respected emissaries, the jaha, to plead for reconciliation.

The jaha are often, as noted above, often come from different faith traditions because they are seen as

unbiased and interested in the common good. The jaha’s role is to secure a public agreement to enter into

a truce known as hodna. The hodna is an agreement to participate in good faith in the mediation process

for a certain amount of time, reframing form retribution or further antagonism. During the hodna, the jaha

facilitate mediation. Finally, when both parties come to agreement they enter into the multistep,

commensally focused sulha process which signifies the restoration of honor and the granting of

forgiveness. The first step is to send out invitations to family members, special guests and members of

the wider community to attend a feast in the village center. During the feast the aggressor accepts his

wrong doing and asks forgiveness and offers compensation, while the aggrieved family responds

magnanimously. Following the feast the aggrieved family invites the aggressors into their home to share

coffee. Then, shortly thereafter the aggressor’s family invites the aggrieved family to their house for a

feast in which they symbolically share bread, representing fidelity. While the practice of sulha is

considered Arabic and has been traditionally embraced by other faith traditions it wasn’t until the Al-

Aqsa (second) intifada that the ritual became a focal point for grassroots peace-building and reconciliation

between the Palestinians and Israelis. The Sulha Peace Project started in the midst of the uprising in

which about 3,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis were killed. While it doesn’t exactly follow the process

of jaha, hodna and sulha, the project has taken elements of each and created a new model for

reconciliation and peace-building that is still based on sharing a meal (Our Programs, 2014).

Breaking Bread with the Taliban Tim McGrik, an American journalist writing for “Time,” shares a vignette of how he spent Thanksgiving

with the Taliban just two months after 9/11 (2001). He paints a nerve wracking picture of being held up

in a Taliban compound with heavily armed Taliban fighters, including Mullah Mohammed Omar’s

nephew and Jalaluddin Haqqani's son, as dusk fell, and American bombers flew overhead along the

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 20 Afghan Pakistan border. Despite the obvious tension the journalists were able to find one thing to share

with the Taliban and that was food. McGrik comments that at about the same time the Taliban were

breaking their Ramadan fast people in America were preparing to eat their Thanksgiving dinner. Despite

profoundly different worldviews, and despite the fact that both parties represented extreme spectrums of

those views, one an ardent voice for postmodern values, the others the strong-hand of a premodern

culture, they were able to break bread together. Despite modest fare of canned food, sweet breads,

mango juice, and raisins, cobbled together by attendants, he poignantly observes that his experience in the

Rigestan desert wasn’t all that different from the first Thanksgiving. “People from two warring cultures

sharing a meal together and realizing, briefly, that we're not so different after all (McGirk, 2001).”

Postmodern Commensal Diplomacy Rockower concludes his seminal work on gastrodiplomacy by saying that a major component of its

success is the way that people-to-people interactions “shape and expand perceptions and understandings

(forthcoming).” He uses his assertion to label two specific, and somewhat well-known examples of

postmodern people-to-people commensal interactions, Conflict Kitchen and “Vindaloo Against

Violence”, as “gastrodiplomacy” (note that I have defined gastrodiplomacy differently as a track two

practice and have termed track three people-to-people diplomacy as commensal diplomacy). In both

cases, restaurant proprietors used their businesses as a tool that transcends cultural diplomacy and

squarely placed them in the realm of peace-building and conflict resolution. Due to the bidirectional

nature of the dialog their efforts spur they operate using a track three praxis. I argue that these two

examples, as well as the case of Mealsharing.com are postmodern reinterpretations of the ancient practice

of which I term commensal diplomacy.

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 21

Commensality 2.0 Conflict Kitchen, based in Pittsburg, in the US and “Vindaloo Against Violence” which started in

Melbourne in Australia, seized on the necessity of reinterpreting age old commensal PCR practice. In

both these cultures, the tradition of eating together as families, extended families and communities is

fading. The trend towards store-bought prepared and semiprepared foods, takeout, and dining-out has

drastically changed social mensal practices from group focused towards an individualistic focus. For this

reason, the onus for using commensality as a peace-building medium seems to have fallen on grassroots

activists instead of domestic hosts.

Conflict Kitchen is a takeout

restaurant, founded by socially

conscious artists, that only serves

cuisines from countries that are in

conflict with the US (Conflict

Kitchen, 2014). Every few months

they focus on a new conflict cuisine.

Each rebirth of the Conflict Kitchen is

“augmented by events, performances,

and discussions that seek to expand the engagement the public has with the culture, politics, and issues at

stake within the focus country (Conflict Kitchen, 2014).” Food is wrapped in custom packaging printed

with interviews with locals from and information about the country in question. Employees manning the

takeout window are trained to engage in constructive dialog about the conflict country (Trinh, 2014).

“Vindaloo Against Violence,” is a social media campaign started by Australian digital designer Mia

Northrop as a way to protest a rash of violence and racial tensions that flared up between Indians and

Australians in 2010 (DNA, 2010; Bryant, 2010). The campaign urged Australians to eat vindaloo, a type

of curry, from Indian restaurants on a February 24th, 2010, to show their support for the Indian

Figure 8 Taste testing with the local Palestinian community outside Conflict Kitchen. (Conflict Kitchen, 2014)

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 22 community. The campaign went viral attracting support from around the country and the world; over

16,000 people signed up (Bryant, 2010). On the appointed day people from around the world went to

Indian restaurants en masse, ordered take out, and organized community curry dinners all around

Australian and as far away as Tennessee, Singapore and Vancouver (Andersen, 2010). Kevin Rudd,

Australia’s premier, followed the campaign on Twitter while the Australian embassy in India scrambled

to convince Indians that Australia valued their expatriate community (Andersen, 2010; Australian, 2010).

In an interesting postmodern paradox, Mealsharing.com is a social technology platform that is promoting

old fashioned socializing around the world over a homecooked meal. The website socially networks

registrants who are willing to share a home cooked meals with travelers or local persons looking to

socialize (Our Mission, 2014). The website came out of an epiphany Jay Savsani, a Chicago native, had

after randomly being invited for a home cooked meal while traveling in Cambodia. With hosts in over

425 cities and growing rapidly, Mealsharing.com is facilitating contact and dialog between cultures and

people with different worldviews that otherwise wouldn’t be possible. While not specifically focused on

PCR, it is building cross cultural understanding which fosters peace.

Intergroup Contact Hypothesis By exploring commensality as it relates to different histographic contexts it is evident that there is

potential to identify an effective and culturally relevant mechanism that can be implemented by those in

the PCR field. Sam Chapple-Sokol, who comes from a culinary diplomacy background, Andrea Wenzel,

who works in communication theory, and Stephanie Ketterer are the only authors, uncovered by my

extensive research, who have conceived of commensality as a meritorious approach to peace-building and

conflict resolution. Chapple-Sokol says “there is potential [that food] can be used as an instrument of

conflict resolution, [and that] through citizen-to-citizen interaction, food can be used to cross battle lines

in protracted social conflicts (2014).” This nascent field of commensal diplomacy, which I explicitly link

to PCR, clearly has promise, but what isn’t clear is what psychological and social mechanisms bring

about that promise. Both Chapple-Sokol and Wenzel reference Intergroup Conflict Hypothesis (ICH),

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 23 attributed to Gordon Allport’s 1954 book The Nature of Prejudice, as the theoretical underpinning of

commensal diplomacy and conflict resolution (Chapple-Sokol, 2014; Wenzel, 2014; Allport 1954). ICH

was a counter point to the pessimistic, socially-Darwinistic hypothesis which prevailed in the early

twentieth century, that suspicion, fear, and sometimes open conflict were hardwired evolutionary traits

(Dovidio, Glick & Rudman, 2005). The experiences of blacks and whites fighting together in World War

II provided the impetus to many segments of society to reexamine their assumptions about interracial

relations (Dovidio, Glick & Rudman, 2005). Their shared experience of struggle, particularly the Battle

of the Bulge, where whites and blacks fought side by side, sometimes in desegregated units, built trust

and respect that returned with them state side (Johnson, 2014). The intellectual climate of the 1950’s

allowed Allport to explore the nature of prejudice in his seminal work. His hypothesis stated that

“reduced prejudice will result when four positive features of the contact situation are present: a) equal

status between the groups, b) common goals, c) intergroup cooperation, and d) the support of authorities,

law, or custom (Dovidio, Glick & Rudman, 2005).” Allport’s hypothesis is highly regarded and

extensively referenced in peace building and conflict resolution literature. However, there are problems

with his hypothesis. As Plous notes, it is difficult to meet the four conditions defined by Allport (2014).

In the case of US interracial relations, the condition of equal status between blacks and whites only

occurred within the artificial confines of the battle field, not on the home front where those men lived in

close proximity. The systemic violence of a segregated system prevented the first precondition of ICH

from occurring. When looking at several of the examples of commensal practices we will find that equal

status clearly wasn’t a part of the political calculus of the Kennedy diplomatic dinners, or to be found

between the Assyrian King and his new vassals, nor between the Kayabi and the Brazilians. The same

can be said of the intergroup cooperation. Cooperation can hardly have said to have occurred since

Kennedy has the express agenda to draw India into the US sphere of influence, while Ayub Kahn has the

diametric opposite desire. Similarly, cooperation was hardly a feature of Kayabi-Brazilian interaction,

instead it was persistence until capitulation or pacification occurred. Finally, while support of authority,

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 24 law or custom is seems like a solid concept from a postmodern perspective, it tends to break down when

viewed within different histographic contexts, particularly transmodernism. Allen and Chagnon point out

the interpersonal contact hypothesis model is predicated on the concept of the individual as a free moral

agent, a distinctly postmodern concept (Lee, 2004). The Kayabi exemplify a dividualistic culture where

the concept of personhood is shared. The strength of the dividualist bond is such that when dispute

occurs over a common, but finite resource, as is often the case in modern conflicts, peace and

reconciliation are impossible. When facing such a tragedy of the commons, scarcity thinking makes goals

compete and cooperation unlikely. Jaques Ellul speaks to this when he says no peace is possible among

people who covet or find themselves coveting the same thing (Ellul, 1991). While some commensal

situations like Sulha might fit within Allport’s intergroup contact hypothesis, I would argue that it

provides a weak theoretical framework for understanding the utility of commensality in peace building

and conflict resolution.

Communication Infrastructure Theory Andrea Wenzel has proposed communication infrastructure theory (CIT) as an alternate explanation for

the mechanisms behind commensal diplomacy (A. Wenzel personal communication, October 14th 2014).

CIT, developed by Sandra Ball-Rokeach, conceives of conflict and eventual resolution as a dynamic of

storytelling networks composed of three constituencies; community organizations, local/ethnic media, and

neighborhood residents (Wilkin, Moran, Ball-Rokeach, Gonzalez & Kim, 2010). The operation of the

storytelling network is influenced by the communication action context, which is essentially all the

different channels through which communication takes place. There are a plethora of channels that

compose the communication action context from local radio and Facebook to informal gatherings at

barber shops and neighborhood gossip. In theory conflict affects the ability of certain channels to operate

which in turn shapes the story. For example, if residents of a neighborhood are afraid, due to street

violence, to go to the barber shop, then the voices represented by that group tends to drop out of the

collective story. Ball-Rokeach’s theoretical framework is distinctly postmodern as character sized by her

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 25 Metamorphosis Project which is constructed around CIT. “This ongoing research effort is designed to

unmask the evolution of 21st century community through multi-level/multi-method field analyses of new

(i.e., Internet) and traditional (i.e., interpersonal, mass media and community media) communication

flows that sustain and transform the social fabrics of place and cyberspace (Ball-Rokeach, 2014).” While

CIT is a valuable theoretical framework for PCR practitioners to consider as they try to understand

postmodern conflict, such as the 2012-2013 Arab Spring in Egypt, it runs afoul of the same validity test

that invalidated ICH. In order for a theoretical framework about how commensal diplomacy functions to

be applicable it must be broadly applicable to all contexts in which commensality has been used in a way

consistent with PCR practices.

Proposed Theoretical Framework for Commensal Diplomacy The purpose of this paper has been to demonstrate that commensal diplomacy is a practice that has

existed from time immemorial. Furthermore, it is a practice that is germane to the many different

contexts in which conflict occurs, as reflected by the historical record. Although not recognized as a

extant field, yet commensal diplomacy is widely practiced in diplomatic circles as evidenced by the

winter 2014 issue of “Public Diplomacy Magazine” which is devoted to gastrodiplomacy (because of the

release date I was unable to incorporate their articles into this paper). Of particular importance to PCR

practitioners is commensal diplomacy as it applies to the transmodern context where we see that the

greatest gulf between adversaries exists. Given the pervasiveness of global conflict that could be

classified as transmodern, and given the cost in lives and dollars, as well as the intractable nature of these

conflicts, it seems prudent to further examine commensal diplomacy as a methodology for PCR. While it

has not been possible to synthesize a framework within the limited scope of this paper I will suggest areas

for future scholarly research. The eventual theoretical framework for commensal diplomacy will, by

necessity, be a strongly transdisciplinary construct pulling from the fields of psychology, sociology,

anthropology, and PCR studies.

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 26

References

1997 Asian Financial Crisis (2014) Retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Asian_financial_crisis

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Andersen, B. (2010) Aussies urged to vindaloo against violence ABC News

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-01-29/aussies-urged-to-vindaloo-against-violence/313792

Australian High Commission India (2010) Australian community gets behind ‘Vindaloo Against

Violence’ campaign – Indian restaurants booked out

http://www.india.embassy.gov.au/ndli/pa1710.html

Ball-Rokeach, S. (2014) Sandra Ball-Rokeach. Retrieved from

http://annenberg.usc.edu/Faculty/Communication%20and%20Journalism/BallRokeachS.aspx

Brinkley, P. (2014). War front to store front: Americans rebuilding trust and hope in nations under fire.

Bryant, N. (2010) Australians asked to eat a 'Vindaloo against Violence' BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8533406.stm

Captured Terrorist: Ajmal Amir Kasav tells his story (2008) Retrieved from

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2008-12-03/news/27727691_1_afzal-ajmal-amir-

kasav-faridkot-village

Chapple-Sokol, S. (2014) War and Peas. Retrieved from

http://publicdiplomacymagazine.com/warandpeas/

Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord (2014) Retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Maurice_de_Talleyrand-P%C3%A9rigord

Club des Chefs des Chefs (2014) Retrieved from

http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/lumiere-club-des-chefs-des-chefs/

CNN Travel (2012) World’s 50 Best Foods. http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/eat/worlds-50-most-

delicious-foods-067535

Conflict Kitchen (2014) About http://conflictkitchen.org/about/

DNA (2010) 'Vindaloo' against violence, an Indian food campaign, a

sellouthttp://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-vindaloo-against-violence-an-indian-food-

campaign-a-sellout-1345884

Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P. S., & Rudman, L. A. (2005). On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport.

Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 27 Ellul, J. (1991). Anarchy and Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans.

Ex-envoy castigates Thaksin's diplomacy. (2006) The Nation Retrieved from

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/03/19/national/national_20003056.php

Gellman, M., & Vuinovich, M. (2008). From Sulha to Salaam: Connecting local knowledge with

international negotiations for lasting peace in Palestine/Israel. Conflict Resolution Quarterly,

26(2), 127-148.

Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (2013) Retrieved from http://www.unfoundation.org/what-we-

do/campaigns-and-initiatives/cookstoves/

Griffin, D. R. (1990). Sacred interconnections: Postmodern spirituality, political economy, and art.

Albany: State University of New York Press.

Grist (2013) Rio Grand: Scenes from the Earth Summit retrieved from http://grist.org/slideshow/rio-

grand-scenes-from-the-earth-summit-slideshow/

Hess, S. (2006). Strathern's Melanesian 'dividual' and the Christian 'individual' : a Perspective from Vanua

Lava, Vanuatu. Oceania, 76(3), 285-296.

Inflation Calculator (2014) Retrieved from http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

Irani, G. E., and Funk, N. C. (2001) “Rituals of Reconciliation: Arab-Islamic Perspectives.” In A. A. Said,

N. Funk, and A. S. Kadayifci (eds.), Peace and Conflict Resolution in Islam. Lanham, Md.:

University Press of America, 2001.

Johnson, G, K., (2014) Black Soldiers of the Ardennes. Retrieved from

http://www.bjmjr.net/ww2/ardennes.htm

Ketterer, S. (2014). 'Love Goes through the Stomach': A Japanese-Korean Recipe for Post-conflict

Reconciliation. Anthropology In Action, 21(2), 2-13. doi:10.3167/aia.2014.210202

Lee, Y. (2004). The Psychology of Ethnic and Cultural Conflict. Westport, Conn: Praeger.

McGirk, T. (2001). Thanksgiving with the Taliban. Time Europe, 158(23), 39.

Modern History (2008) Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history

Morgan, L. (2012). Diplomatic Gastronomy: Style and Power at the Table. Food & Foodways: History &

Culture Of Human Nourishment, 20(2), 146-166. doi:10.1080/07409710.2012.680366

Murros, M. (1994) High Calories (and Chef!) Out. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/05/us/high-calories-and-chef-out-at-white-house.html

Myers, S.L. (2012) New York Times Magazine. Hillary Clinton’s Last Tour as a Rock-Star Diplomat

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/magazine/hillary-clintons-last-tour-as-a-

rock-star-diplomat.html?pagewanted=all&_r=

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 28 Oakdale, S. (2008). The commensality of ‘contact’, ‘pacification’, and inter-ethnic relations in the

Amazon: Kayabi autobiographical perspectives. Journal Of The Royal Anthropological Institute,

14(4), 791-807. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9655.2008.00531.x

Our Mission (2014) Retrieved from https://www.mealsharing.com/about

Our Programs (2014) Retrieved from http://www.sulha.com/our_programs

Plous, S. (2014) The contact Hypothesis. Retrieved from

http://www.understandingprejudice.org/apa/english/page24.htm

Rockower, P. (forthcoming) Recipes for Gastrodiplomacy. Public Diplomacy Magazine. Retrieved from

http://publicdiplomacymagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/pb201217_AOP-1-copy.pdf

Smith, K. (2012). From dividual and individual selves to porous subjects. Australian Journal Of

Anthropology, 23(1), 50-64. doi:10.1111/j.1757-6547.2012.00167.x

Standard of Ur (2014) Retrieved from http://www.penn.museum/sites/iraq/?page_id=48

Strong, R. C. (2002). Feast: A history of grand eating. Orlando, Fla: Harcourt.

Sunanta, S. (2005) The Globalization of Thai Cuisine Retrieved from

http://www.youscribe.com/catalogue/tous/loisirs-et-hobbies/cuisine-et-vins/the-globalization-of-

thai-cuisine-372295

The diplomat (2014) Thailand: Time for Introspection http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/thailand-time-for-

introspection/

The members of the Club des Chefs des Chefs (2014) Retrieved from http://www.club-des-chefs-des-

chefs.com/membre_angl.php

The World’s Most Exclusive Society (2014) Retrieved from http://www.club-des-chefs-des-

chefs.com/index_angl.php

Transmodernism (2014) Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmodernism

Trinh, T. (2014) Pittsburgh Restaurant Serves the Food of Countries in Conflict With US ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/pittsburgh-restaurant-serves-food-countries-conflict-

us/story?id=24713895

United States Institute of Peace (2011) Retrieved from http://glossary.usip.org/resource/tracks-diplomacy

U.S. Department of State (2012) U.S. Department of State to Launch Diplomatic Culinary Partnership

Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/09/197375.htm

Varanyanond W. (2013) FOSTERING FOOD CULTURE WITH INNOVATION: OTOP AND THAI

KITCHEN TO THE WORLD Retrieved from http://jircas-d.job.affrc.go.jp/Ver-

1/english/files/2014/03/2013-session-42.pdf

The Relationship between Commensality, Diplomacy, And PCR 29 Wenzel, A. (2014) Potluck for Peace. Retrieved from http://publicdiplomacymagazine.com/potlucks-for-

peace/

Wilkin, H. A., Moran, M., Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Gonzalez, C., & Kim, Y. (2010). Applications of

Communication Infrastructure Theory. Health Communication, 25(6/7), 611-612.

doi:10.1080/10410236.2010.496839

World Bank (2014) Ease of Doing Business Index. Retrieved from

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IC.BUS.EASE.XQ

Wright, J. L. (2010). Commensal Politics in Ancient Western Asia. The Background to Nehemiah's

Feasting (Part I). Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 122(2), 212-233.

doi:10.1515/ZAW.2010.016