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, AndPCR 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

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)

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.

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 JawaharlalNehru 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

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.

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

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).

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.

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 severalversions, 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 PaulBrinkley, turn the diplomacy pyramid on its head, revealing

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

(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 vassalin order to prevent open hostility. Feasts were “not simply epiphenomenal

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 severaltimes
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.

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

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 Kayabi
A stark example of the transcendence between a premodern culture and a postmodern one is Suzanne
Oakdale’s research on commensality’s centralrole 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)

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. Kayabicame 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.

[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)

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

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.

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 communityoutside Conflict
Kitchen. (Conflict Kitchen, 2014)

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),

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 severalof 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,

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

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 eventualtheoretical framework for commensal diplomacy will, by
necessity, be a strongly transdisciplinary construct pulling from the fields of psychology, sociology,
anthropology, and PCR studies.

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.

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=

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) FOSTERINGFOOD 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

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

Commensal Peacebuilding Draft 10

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Commensal Peacebuilding Draft 10

Similar to Commensal Peacebuilding Draft 10 (15)

Commensal Peacebuilding Draft 10