Armchair Psychology Quiz

I know it when I see it.

No matter what people's opinions are, they really should have defined "sandwich shop" in that exclusivity contract before it was signed.

I know it when I eat it.

The consensus in this house: Gotta have bread (tortillas don't count, pita does) and filling. Ideally, able to be held and eaten in one hand. Hot pockets are not sammiches (my daughter's preferred spelling), hamburgers are.

I hope we aren't talking about what a "sandwich" really is, in and of itself, because that would be total nonsense. Outside of our arbitrary definitions of "sandwich" there is no such thing as a sandwich.

Think about the looseness of words like "sandwich" and "planet". These are words we use everyday, and think we know what they mean, but then an event like this forces us to observe the looseness of words.

Now, think about words like "God" and "Nature", how well defined are they? Do you normally talk as if you know what these things are?

I'm pretty generous in my own definition in that I'll accept just about anything on a bun, in a wrap, or between two pieces of the same thing (be it bread or lettuce or *eulk* fried chicken patties) as a sandwich. What I don't like is the open-faced allowance. If there's no sandwiching, there's no sandwich.

@Adrienne -

So does it have to be 2 of the same thing? How about a triple-decked sandwich?

Do you then classify a quesadilla as a sandwich?

If your sandwich has "wiggle room", I don't wanna know what's in it.

Or a pop tart?

Yep, triple-deckers count. The third slice is part of the filling, basically. And I'm ok with quesadillas being sandwiches, too. It's a grilled cheese variant, right? I don't know about pop tarts--the bread is connected, so it's technically an encasement rather than a sandwich. I'll have to think about it. Anything rolled rather than sandwiched doesn't count for me, either, so burritos and wraps are out.

I fall into the two horizontal pieces of (leavened) bread camp. I suppose a hot dog could qualify, if you ate it sideways. The only exception to the rule is a double-double protein style.

Ooh, double-double protein style. I know what I'm having for my next meal :)

Amazing how an event like this, that should open our minds to the arbitrariness of our concepts actually fuels more debate. So you have this range of cuisine's which you *want* to classify into two groups and set-up and abritrary division between that which has a slice of bread on top and bottom, and that which is encased or has just a single slice of bread. Perhaps once you've determined that such and such is classified as a "sandwich" then you become a "sandwichist" and assert that your definition of "sandwich" is the only plausible or realistic definition and that all other so-called "sandwiches" are not actually sandwiches but imposters. Sounds like the recipe for a World War.

So I'll mark Ryan down as a "no" for quesadillas, then. :P

Haha, I love this debate!

You are incorrigible Adrienne!

"The world is not dialectical -- it is sworn to extremes, not to equilibrium, sworn to radical antagonism, not to reconciliation or synthesis. This is also the principle of evil." - Jean Baudrillard

"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon

Now, you might get into trouble with the definition of "two pieces of bread." You're using that to exclude tacos and wraps, but I taught my kids to make a half-sandwich, where you fold one piece of bread around peanut butter or baloney or something because they were too little to eat a whole one. But if we CUT that bread into two pieces, would that make it a sandwich?

I stand corrected; there is nothing of substance to be illuminated here. Such illumination would require some kind of light-emitting device.

Or that's not precisely the problem; it's more like this:

It takes a lot of courage to take the unconscious seriously and to tackle the problems it raises. Most people are too indolent to think deeply about even those moral aspects of which they are conscious; they are certainly too lazy to consider how the unconscious affects them. - M. - L. von Franz, Man And His Symbols (Carl Jung), P. 176

It must have, at minimum, an edible substance between two edible pieces of bread. The KFC Double Down is not a true substance.

Silly. If "sandwich" is a generic term for any hand held food substance, it loses it's meaning. Try ordering a bean and cheese sandwich at the taco stand, you'll be lucky if they don't call 911. :) And if I have to eat it with a fork, it is not a sandwich, it is a tall casserole.

Meat. Bread. That is all.

I may be a little late to the party but I'd just like to throw something else into the mix: the noble ice cream sandwich. No bread in one of those, or at least I hope not.

To further muddy the waters, perhaps a sandwich is 'something edible but potentially messy, encased in something edible but not so messy in order that the messy substance can be more easily carried and eaten, with at least one long edge revealed the substance inside to facilitate identification of the contents'.

Or not :)

But would a couple slices of bacon between two peanut-butter cookies be a sandwich?

This is fun. We're figuring out what Plato told us a long time ago - we can't define these things, but we can understand the essence therein. The same issue comes up when a group of people are asked to define "chair" or "door."

We all know the standard of "sandwich" even though we can't put it into words.

I am most disturbed by the fact that Panera was granted some sort of "sandwich" monopoly over an area than any ambiguity over terms, which exist practically everywhere. That said...
Cake is not bread (though that distinction can be fuzzy, ie banana bread), so that would rule out pop-tarts and ice cream "sandwiches".
My intuition leans towards Adriennes "sandwiching" requirement, which could include wraps because of a "sandwiching" action. Hard tacos may be excluded because of lack of "bread" and the "sandwiching" is usually unsatisfactory. Soft tacos may still be ok. If you don't like hot dogs being referred to "sandwiches" don't "sandwich" them. Corn dogs would not be "sandwiches" for example. Half "sandwiches" are fine as long as there is "sandwiching" applied.
Open faced "sandwiches" are like one hand clapping.

Defining what is a sandwich is like trying to define what is pornography....difficult if not impossible to do, but we all know it when we see it.

-"BB"-

The essence of a sandwich lies in stacking of its materials, open display of its contents, and edibility without utensils.

Stacking: Generally, sandwiches have a clearly identifiable top and bottom made of similar material and contain an item (or multiple items) that are different - this is a key differentiation between a "sandwich" and a "wrap". Whereas a "wrap" or "burrito" will contain one or more items with a carbohydrate-based layer, a sandwich relies on the flat spread and vertical distribution of its ingredients.

Open Display of Contents: Along with the "stackability" argument, burritos and other similar items will fail this test since they use their wrapping to obfuscate their contents. While some people enjoy surprises, a sandwich is just not the proper place for secrecy. Quesadillas, for the most part, fail this test, since the tortilla is routinely folded over and the cheese will obscure any additional ingredients (steak, chicken, peppers, etc.). A pita, on the other hand, passes this test, since the contents (while obscured on all but one side) are still viewable and auditable.

Utensil-free Edibility: The traditional sandwich is an item that can be eaten with one's hands. Lasagna and several other baked goods fail this test because they are difficult to consume without utensils.
Note: open-faced sandwiches are dead to me.

This interpretation leaves open the possibility of breadless sandwiches (and leaves out the concept of open-faced sandwiches, which are dead to me), but this is to be expected. Traditional sandwiches include bread (or a similar carbohydrate), and that is the generally accepted definition. For non-traditional sandwiches, the nature of their novelty is routinely included in the name of that item, giving credence to the notion that they are not "traditional" sandwiches and reinforcing the generally accepted definition.

The open interpretation of the word "sandwich" can be fuzzy (as this article illustrates), but it is nowhere near as confusing as the ever-evasive "salad", which is near-impossible to define. After attempts to do so in the past, several of my friends have resolved themselves to failure and begun to refer to hamburgers as "meat-and-bread salads".