The Urgent need for the Sandwich Theory

The World is in a state of existential crisis, a crisis of meaning. Gone are the old, 19th Century certainties of nation, class, race, gender, beer, God, sport, a good roast on a Sunday afternoon and a bit of lawn bowls. With the rise of China and India a 20th Century cultural landscape dominated by American Cold Wars, Good vs. Evil, Cowboys, Hollywood, Consumerism and the related American Self is rapidly falling apart; dominance, and supremacy, have long been nostalgic memories for the Englishman, but now our capacity to parasitically leach such a sense off our American cousins is also in rapid retreat; Shopping, and other forms of consumption, has never been so boring, so last Century.

Into this shifting vacuum have stepped all manner of past, present and future contenders on the mantelpiece of meaning- on the one hand a myriad of fragments, the ultimate fragment being the solipsist inward looking individual slumped woefully on the therapist's couch or pondering where it all went wrong on the loo; on the other hand a bland, generic, global homogeneity, a sort of globalised bourgeois dream which sees us united under the banner of house prices and holidays; Either state, or both, leaving the individual feeling somewhat empty, or all at sea- stuck between a new found obsessive interest in the local knitting club or herbal remedies, which they relate to four people through, or a fascination with the latest bland Hollywood release which everyone and no-one is watching and everyone can talk about a bit but no one really gives a toss about until the next one comes out.

In a reaction to this void some have turned towards 'Reality', in the shape of reality television, or other forms of apparent realism. Unfortunately this only reflects the existing crisis back into people's faces.

Sandwich Theories proposes a new lens, a new central point, a new God, through which to view and relate to the world: The Sandwich. The Sandwich is as ubiquitous as it is particular as it is universal. It crosses all epochs and classes, it comes with no particular historical baggage- it has never been used to oppress women, children, blacks, whites, men. The Sandwich has never been a symbol of dominance and supremacy, nor of submission and bovine conventionality.

Human beings have never been able to relate directly with one another- they require intermediaries between each other, to keep reality mediated. In the past they needed sport, gender, class, religion, politics, God, science, art, kite surfing, consumerism and supremacy. In the 21st Century we propose a new intermediary- The Sandwich.

Mr Noisy

Mr Noisy shops for the central ingredients of any good Sandwich: Bread and Meat

Sandwich Wars

We live at a point in History in which very little is happening. I do not of course mean that nothing is actually happening, but that nothing much is Happening in the grander scheme of things, in History. Politics is more or less dead, it has been reduced to the management of a creaking Capitalist-Statist ship- it has become a matter of engineering, rather than architecture. Religion has not been a driver of History, in anything other than a conservative sense, for some time and across the UK and Europe at least it is dwindling- church attendance is down to 15% of the UK population (going once a month at least), and 33% of the population positively identify themselves as Atheists/Agnostics. While Inequality is vast there is little desire or will to do anything about it, and the cause of Equality over the 20th Century- equal rights for women, ethnic and other minorities- has more or less played itself out.

We in the West have also got increasingly little to really worry about, even though we try hard. 'Communism' as a major threat has been and gone. 'Terrorism', whilst it may create a good explosion and a few deaths every so often, is not the multi-headed global empire that we were so keen to believe in to make us feel alive. China, and India, are only really a 'threat' in terms of economic competition, but we are by and large quite well ahead of them in advanced industries, and so really we only have ourselves to blame, or worry about, if the financial system collapses or we let the rest catch up with us.

The problem with nothing really happening though is that it leaves us with a nagging sense of a kind of existential void- we go to work (if we've still got a job), we go on strike, we try to make more money (if we can or have still got a job), we compete a bit, we shack up and reproduce, we go shopping, watch a bit of Telly and if we are lucky go on a bit of a holiday, or to an art gallery. It is fine, but it is a bit boring.

One way to entertain oneself in such circumstances is to pick some arbitrary things that one believes in very strongly, fundamentally, and in reflection some other beliefs that one dislikes, or hates, very much and believes are completely wrong. Much of the Left-Right 'debate' seems to operate in this way, as a kind of sport, on the whole imagining the opposition, or blowing up some part of their beliefs into a monster, and then doing battle with it. Whether it be abortion, gays, women, the family, religion, God, the state, the free market or what have you it seems that certain sorts of people, and groups, are well practised at working themselves up into such an imagined frenzy, on the Left or Right or other axis, that they can create an endless friction, and sense of being alive, almost out of thin air.

In this way, rather cleverly, the various protagonists create a kind of sport, and manage to transfix each other, and an audience, in the playing out of the sport. The Reds and the Blues can thus absolutely hate one another, want to annihilate one another, but tacitly of course each requires the other to play the game. If either team walked off the pitch, with the other one shouting at themselves or thin air, then the game would be up. Take atheists and theists, for example. Most normal people of either kind just go about their business, probably unaware of who is what, as it doesn't matter very much, other than to themselves. But there is a certain kind of atheist who is desperate to rail against religion at the slightest opportunity, and equally there is a type of warlike theist who sees non-believers everywhere and who is keen to bring up the matter of God, and how wrong atheists are, at every possible opportunity. Both though have more in common  than the atheists and theists who go about their business, and the warlike, threatened or evangelical atheist/theist needs the other to survive, to play their particular sport.

Following this logic I would suggest a new kind of War- the Sandwich War. Indeed it has already been tried in New York, something to do with Pastrami vs. Cheese. But this was no doubt a joke, a bit tongue in cheek. Ironic wars though do not work. If football was played in an ironic fashion, as if everyone really knew that it was a bit silly and a waste of time, then it wouldn't have survived for more than an afternoon. The key to inventing such sports, in the absence of anything really happening, is to convince yourself, and your 'enemy', that what you are doing, the fight you are engaged in, is absolutely, fundamentally important and central not only to your life, and their life, but the lives of everyone, to History and Society itself.

The New Yorkers, with their Pastrami vs. Cheese, made it trite, silly. What is needed is a new found belief in certain Sandwich fundamentals, a fundamentalist Sandwich movement. I believe that there are already emergent elements in this blog that could point the way to this new, overly-serious movement. The Sandwich and the culture it represents, in its fundamental form, is under threat from many, often foreign, pretenders- the Burger, the Hotdog, the Post-Modern Sandwich, the Pork Bun, the Panninni, the Weekend Leisure Market Dry Cured Meat and Ciabatta thing, the Club Sandwich, the Office Sandwich. If we do not act soon the Sandwich will have been eroded by these evil terrorists to such a degree that it will no longer exist in its pure form. It is of course no accident that these terroristic Sandwich pretenders are on the whole foreign- often American, sometimes Continental, often infected with an ideology of Capitalism, in its work or leisured forms. We must strike now and strike fast at these cultural cancers. You are either with us or against us in this fight, and if you aren't with us then we don't like you.

The Post-Modern Sandwich

The Post-Modernity of the above Sandwich is that it has taken a perfectly good idea/concept- the Sandwich- and taken some perfectly good ingredients- cheese, ham, Italian sausage, bread- and it has managed to create something that is everything and nothing: It is not quite a Sandwich, it is not quite a Rubix Cube; it is not food, but neither is it art, and neither is it a joke; it is not beautiful, but neither is it functional; it is a stupid, pointless thing that is neither traditional, nor innovative, that somehow demands the attention, yet it would not matter at all if it did not exist, and it plays no part in the history of Humanity, Art, the Sandwich, nor anything else; it simply hangs in space- meaningless, pointless, yet somehow very real.

Alexis Soyer – Victorian Kitchen Genius and Chef

Alexis Soyer was chef to the aristocracy of Victorian London. But he also set up soup kitchens during the Irish Famine and organised the hospital kitchens of the Crimea.

Here, Aveling, interviews Alexis, about the class system and its relation to the sandwich:

Aveling: Is it true Alexis that although your culinary expertise is wide and unending, you are also a keen sandwich maker?

Alexis: Yes.

Aveling: You are French but you have worked in London and married an English woman and I believe this gives you the objectiveness, which I am looking for as I am particularly interested in the fact that you have dealt in close quarters with both aristocracy and serfs in equal measures. Furthermore, the French class system is much like our own and it is both this and your culinary skills, along with your altruistic concern for other peoples need for sustenance that I would like to put to you an idea of our own English class system, in the topic of a ham sandwich, in your case a jambon sandwich or baguette.

Alexis: Yes.

Aveling: I will now define our English class system -not as a simple analogy- but on a factual basis, with the makings of a sandwich. I shall begin...

Working class sandwich = Bread, butter (thinly spread) and ham.
Lower Middle class sandwich = Bread, butter, lettuce and ham.
Middle class sandwich = Bread, (No Butter but oil as a lubricant) tomato and ham.
Upper middle class sandwich = Bread, thickly spread butter and ham. (And would never consider anything else, especially tomato)
Upper, Aristocracy or Toff class sandwich = Bites of bread and then ham eaten alternately with absolutely nothing else. (A sandwich of the mouth rather than the hand)

...You will notice the lower middle and middle classes step away from the triangular way of seeing things of the start, middle and end structures, as Aristotle wrote his plays and Hollywood, to this day, still uses as its template, but for now this is not our main concern. You will further notice Alexis that the working class, though poles apart in the class system to the upper middle and upper classes, have almost the same appetite, (as though in being so opposite they stand side by side of the start/finish line. Did you find this to be the case when cooking for both classes yourself?

Alexis: Yes.

Aveling: Do you think this idea half-baked?

Alexis: No.

Aveling: If you are wondering where the nouveau riche fit into this, they don't eat sandwiches, they eat risotto. In France could you tell a persons class by the way they apply the ingredients of their sandwich, or is this too much of a generalization?

Alexis: No it is not and Yes you can.

Aveling: Thank you, Alexis.

Fillings and Toppings: Mr Hot, Mr Cold, Mr Cheap, Mr Expensive, Mr Messy and Mr Rich

                                              

                                  

I have been attempting to explicate the relationship between toppings and fillings. They both have a fundamental need for bread and yet toppings do not follow the BFB structure, (Bread-Filling-Bread). Somehow, the reduced two-tear system of the BT, (Bread-Topping) has become popular as a home-time norm, probably out of fear from excessive carbs than laziness in buttering just one slice of bread.

Paradoxically, the club sandwich, having a third piece of bread placed within the middle of the filling, has done nothing to dent its popularity.

But perhaps the dual approach of the BT has a measured taste rather than 75/25 offered by the BFB. Closer inspection in types of filling, i.e. an expensive filling, is something you would not want to cover-up with an excessive amount of bread. In addition, cheap fillings such as bacon, or jam, which is messy, keeps them from ever realistically being considered as toppings for just one piece of bread alone. Unless of course the bread was toasted and thus reinforced the base from the effects of the weight and/or texture of the topping, countering any sogginess that may give cause to the bread becoming lopsided or droopy.

Furthermore, bacon is greasy and a bigger bread percentage acts as a greater dilution, equalizing out its richness. Unlike caviar, though rich in taste, its expense outweighs the will to dilute. 

Other examples of BT's are pizzas and cheese on toast, also cheap and messy, but unlike the hot dog and/or hamburger, these do not posture as meal substitutes by the very nature of being warm.
Thus, the sandwich was only ever conceived as a quick-cold-fix to meal times. If it has tried to dissimulate itself as more of an event than the sum of its parts were deemed capable -argued in the existence of the club sandwich- this would then only be eaten by someone combining lunch with a works meeting.

Pizzas and cheese on toast however are not sandwiches or fast foods passing themselves off as the big sit down experience to dining but clear distinctions, and it is these distinctions that further need clarification in regards to toppings and fillings, of which can only be made crystalline by adding more initial types into the sandwich lexicon.

Therefore, the new additions are as follows:

Constituting the BFB structure: CCC: cheap-cheap-cheap, CMC: cheap-messy-cheap and CCRC: cheap-cheap/rich-cheap.
Constituting the BT structure: CE: cheap-expensive, CM: cheap-messy and CERC: cheap-expensive/rich-cheap.