On What Constitutes a Sandwich and Schools of Thought on the Subject

The idea of a sandwich is loosely defined, and what criteria must be met in order to consider something a sandwich varies from person to person. Various schools of thought are in existence that believe different things define what is and what is not a sandwich. These schools of thought can be semi-accurately described by using two axes, the x axis being the ‘purity’ of the ingredients used, and the the y axis being the ‘purity’ of the sandwiches structure. Both axes are separated into a portion which defines sandwiches by the most traditional measure of the axis, ‘purists’, a portion who are relatively open to different types of structure or ingredients, ‘neutrals’, and those who are extremely liberal regarding what they believe constitutes a sandwich on that axis, ‘rebels’. In addition, there are some who may not fall on a normally defined point on these two axes; For example, someone may be a Structural Purist, Ingredient Neutral, but also consider foods which fall under Structural Neutral, Ingredient Purist sandwiches. In this case, there would be no defined name for their beliefs, and the name has to be specified. All positions on these axes are named after the name of their x position (ex. Structural Rebel) followed by the name of their y position (ex. Ingredient Neutral), except three positions. These three positions, which would otherwise be referred to as Structural Purist, Ingredient Purist; Structural Neutral, Ingredient Neutral; and Structural Rebel, Ingredient Rebel,

are instead referred to as Hardline Traditionalist, True Neutral, and Radical Sandwich Anarchy respectively.

The school of thought which I belong to is that of Structural Purist, Ingredient Rebel, with the addition of considering foods which would fall under Structural Neutral, Ingredient Purist as sandwiches. This exception is due to that fact that sandwiches in this position would be things such as subs (as the idea of Structural Neutral is one of a container which must be on either side of the toppings, but which must not, necessarily, be in two pieces.), which are ingrained throughout society as sandwiches more so than their other Structural Neutral brethren. The idea of Structural Purist is defined by a piece of food with the classical shape of a sandwich, with two pieces of bread or baked product surrounding the toppings between them. The idea of Ingredient Rebel is defined by a combination of any ingredients that are ‘sandwiched’ together, allowing for things such as ice cream and waffles or fillings and dough to be considered possible ingredients for sandwiches. The Structural Purist, Ingredient Rebel, with the addition of Structural Neutral, Ingredient Neutral (abbreviated as ‘SPIRIN’) foods is the most valid school of thought because it adheres to the idea of a sandwich as perceived by the public unconscious. Without deep thought, anything which falls under SPIRIN requirements appears to be a sandwich, while foods outside of it do not appear to be (This excludes people which already have strong opinions on what forms a sandwich and who disagree with SPIRIN ideas.) This is because if you were to show someone any combination of foods, no matter what the ingredients are, as long as it takes the proper shape of a sandwich, and is feasibly edible, the person will normally conclude that what you’re showing them is a sandwich. The addition of Structural Neutral, Ingredient Purist foods comes from the previously stated perception of things such as subs,

hoagies, and/or grinders as sandwiches. Many people even refer to subs as ‘subway sandwiches’,

defining it as a sandwich in the name. I will now explore the logic behind three schools of thought which disagree with mine, the Hardline Traditionalists, the True Neutrals, and the Radical Sandwich Anarchists. Hardline Traditionalists believe that only things which are both Structural Purist and Ingredient Purist (Composed of ‘classical’ sandwich toppings such as meat, cheese, vegetables, and condiments.) are sandwiches. This is an extremely narrow view of the art of sandwich making which considers only things such as BLTs or turkey and cheese sandwiches true sandwiches. In some cases, Hardline Traditionalists may even distance their beliefs from the idea of foods such as PB&Js being sandwiches, despite the almost universal agreement that they are sandwiches. The Hardline Traditionalist view seems to be one which is closed off from the world and that is elitist, placing the concept of a sandwich on a pedestal, never to be reached by foods which they consider inferior to their beloved BLTs or roast beef and cheese sandwiches. The True Neutral view is one which agrees with the idea that sandwiches may