The story of Tarzan of the Apes(Burroughs,1990) details the first kill of another human being by the orphaned boy brought up among apes. Tarzan prepared to eat the human as his upbringing would have encouraged and found that a ‘strange doubt stayed his hand’(Burroughs,1990,p.84). Tarzan had learned that he was a man and, as such, was presented with the dilemma of whether men ate other men. Burroughs describes Tarzan’s reluctance to eat the flesh of another man as a ‘(h)ereditary instinct, ages old’ which ‘usurped the functions of his untaught mind and saved him from transgressing a world-wide law of whose existence he was ignorant’ (Burroughs,1990,p.79).

In consideration of food classifications and avoidances, there seems in all but a few human societies to be an inherent idea that eating another human being is prohibited. As is evident from the loaded expressions that have defined cannibalism in recent and ancient history, cannibalism is the most controversial classification, a term which is clearly bound up with food prohibitions and contemplation of general societal taboos. How does one separate one case from another, to define one incident of cannibalism as ‘humane’, perhaps due to its ritualistic nature and another as completely inhumane in reaction to its demonstration of cannibalism at its most violent. Are definitions indeed possible at all; confusion and hypocrisy surround the nature of tabooed acts, including various eating habits and their impact on those who condone or prohibit them. Anthropologists have successfully identified some forms of cannibalism, which will first be considered, but following this it is vital to explore the theories behind global food taboos and to determine whether these provide further insight into what remains to be perceived as the last taboo.

Preliminary Theories Concerning the Cannibalism Taboo

A taboo implies something that is ‘unclean’ or ‘forbidden’ for what could be a variety of reasons. The term itself in fact originated in one of the regions most associated with cannibalism – Polynesia – Captain Cook first noting the term during his 1771 visit to Tonga when observing the elaborate system of food taboos that restricted, for example, the diet of pregnant women(Korn,2001). Sigmund Freud discussed the topic extensively in his work Totem and Taboo(1913), remarking that a taboo has a sense of the unapproachable, but, although expressed in prohibitions, ‘differ from moral prohibitions in that they fall into no system that declares…that certain abstinence must be observed and gives reason for that necessity’ (Freud,1913). Furthermore, Freud concluded that taboos were irrational in their adherence only to ‘ambivalent social attitudes’(Korn,2001,p.194), but that nevertheless there existed in all an unconscious inclination towards the very thing that was forbidden. However, most early scholars fought against the idea that, with reference to Freud’s theory, the cannibalism taboo might reflect hidden bestial urges in everyone, preferring instead to explain why a human being would not take part in cannibalistic practices.

Since the idea that cannibalism might exist as more than just a category used to slight unfamiliar and ‘primitive’ societies, became one that was present in anthropological literature, many reasons given for its tabooed status have been proffered, many of which are ‘ludicrously weak’(Routley,1982). Hogg proposed simply that it was ‘the innate repugnance of contemporary man to touch human flesh’(Hogg,1958,p.188) that prohibited cannibalism as a dietary habit for most, while others have opted for similarly undemanding suggestions, claiming the ‘sanctity of all human life’ and the ‘brutalising experience’(Routley,1982) which cannibalism seemed to be. Context is clearly the matter that needs to be approached when assessing these opinions, ‘repugnance’ of human flesh determined partly by a person’s background and conditioning. When cultural principles are forgotten and cannibalism is looked at from the perspective in which it is placed, ‘the triumph of human chauvinism’ (Routley,1982) can be, to an extent, overcome.

This also applies to the opinion that all human life is sacred; cannibalism is associated with bestiality, animal instinct, and the baseness of the act causes most to be disturbed and shocked when they hear of such an incident. The ‘elevation and separation of humans from other creatures’(Routley,1982) therefore makes humans look at what appears to be animalistic behaviour in humans, with some distress, since this is upsetting what is claimed to be the natural order of things. This idea is one that, however much some may deny it, is ever present – cannibalism is seen as an act that is not suitable and does not fit into the sophisticated social systems of human beings.

These initial ideas have been built on considerably by the analysis of those such as Mary Douglas and Marvin Harris who have looked more deeply into why food prohibitions exist in different societies, ideas that are helpful in trying to assess why the consumption of human flesh is such a tabooed subject. However, before these theories are considered, it is necessary to acknowledge how cannibalistic practices have been classified. It is important to establish that different, complex forms of cannibalism exist, instead of just assessing cannibalism as one, clear-cut practice.

The Division of Cannibalistic Practices

Cannibalistic practices have, on the most fundamental level, been divided into two broad general types according to ‘who is eating whom’ (Korn et al,2001,p.13). These are known as exo-cannibalism and endo-cannibalism and refer respectively to groups who consume the parts of their enemies or the parts of their deceased relatives. The contrasting natures of each case are characterised partly by the feeling behind them, exo-cannibalism using man-eating as the ultimate revenge, fulfilling many of the contemporary preconceived ideas about what really goes on amongst the ‘primitive’ tribes of unknown and faraway places. The term ‘cannibal’ originated from just such a view of what this meant and is seen both inside the concerned group and by outsiders, as being the most terrifying way of expressing total victory and domination over your adversaries. Exo-cannibals are also known to hold the belief that eating enemies can give them additional spiritual victory, incorporating the powers of the eaten into their own souls. The Maoris of the eighteenth century have been seen as the ‘archetypal exo-cannibals’(Korn et al,2001,p.13) of this time and have, as a result, confirmed an aspect of their culture concerned with conflict, slaughter and revenge.

Distinct from the vengeful significance of a type of cannibalism used in confrontation, is the less aggressive eating of your own dead, typically relatives or kin. Generally this involves some sort of funerary ritual, where either the intention will be to incorporate the substance of the dead back into the living relatives, or will be simply to venerate and mourn their ancestors through this elaborate practice. The case of the Wari’ people sheds further light on this type of cannibalism, as their ritual is one which embodies these general aspects, but which in fact is less far from a Western perspective of mourning than might be thought.

Finding more contemporary examples of endo-cannibalism is a far easier task than with its contrasting type, numerous peoples in South America and Papua New Guinea reported as having practised such customs in the twentieth century, accounts of the Yanomami Indians of Central Amazonia being just one such case. Here, when a person dies, its relatives and kin consume it in plantain soup, even breaking down the bones so as to take in every part of the child’s substance (Korn et al,2001). The form of cannibalism that has been studied in the twentieth century centres largely on this type of practice, although much more is known, through archaeological records, about the intricacies of exo-cannibalistic traditions. Though there is contemporary verification of the existence of certain cannibalistic rituals therefore, these are not necessarily the rituals with which we are most familiar.

Though it may be less problematic to divide cannibalism into two, relatively clear-cut categories, these classifications cannot be relied on exclusively in order to analyse the complexities of different cannibalistic procedures. Claude Levi-Strauss(1969) tried to define these two descriptions further by suggesting different methods of cooking for endo and exo cannibals, food either being roasted or boiled. Though there was indeed a variation in the two types of preparation throughout sixty societies assumed to practice cannibalism, Paul Shankman (1969) found that there was no consistent correlation between ‘the categorisation of the eaten and the mode of preparation’(Hylland Eriksen,1995).

This illustrates the need to move away from any generalisations and instead to recognise that not only might each society have different ways of managing their rituals, but that, as a society, they will likely have their own rules regarding food avoidances which are linked or not, to their practice of cannibalism. In fact, as Margaret Visser points out, ‘cannibals themselves often regard the eating of human flesh in general with awe and horror; it is ritually marked off from regular eating’(Visser,1991,p.13). Particularly with regard to exo-cannibalism, the eating of people is often denied and explanations of demands from the gods or a vicious, cruel enemy are given to justify certain deeds. Rules and sanctions regarding food are present everywhere, and the fact that some groups may not consider practising cannibalism as breaking these rules, does not reflect on the other prohibitions that they might adhere to. The presence of different food rules amongst different groups therefore must be explored in order to understand why they exist and why one group should be at such variance from another. Two principle arguments are represented in the opposing views of Marvin Harris and Mary Douglas.

Harris v. Douglas

In Marvin Harris’ ‘Good to Eat’(1986), he questions, ‘why are human foodways so diverse?’(Harris,1986,p.14) and queries whether anthropologists can explain specific food preferences found in one culture and not in another. His response is fairly matter-of-fact, stating that there are ‘practical reasons for why people do what they do, and food is no exception’(Harris,1986,p.14). His thoughts extend beyond those of Levi-Strauss whose famous maxim suggested that some foods are ‘good to think’, while others are ‘good to eat’(1962). Harris goes further, suggesting that whether or not foods are good to think, depends on whether they are good to eat. His focus rests upon physical nourishment before thinking of the effect that symbolism or the food’s representation, might have on preferences or prohibitions.

In Harris, we find a classic example of the materialist approach, an approach which essentially holds ‘nature to be a basic decisive factor for culture’(Anthropology,2001). The primary example that Harris uses is that of the sacred cows of the Hindu. His ecological explanation asserts that any large human population will always make sure that it gets ‘as much energy as possible out of the technological and ecological situation in which it is placed’ (Anthropology,2001), religions and ideologies only adapting to what the ‘techno-ecological system’(Anthropology,2001) needs. As regards the sacred cow, Harris himself points out that ‘all this is a matter of religion’ but also emphasises that though ‘religion has affected India’s foodways…India’s foodways have affected India’s religion even more’(Harris,1986,p.51).

The practice of Hindus keeping the cow as something sacred is therefore not illogical since the advantage of using the cow’s dung as fertiliser or consuming its milk, is bigger than that of slaughtering it for food. Harris’ contention that Aztec cannibalism sprang from a need for protein sufficiency(Harris,1979) is another example of the ‘cultural materialism’ for which Harris has been well documented. This view drew intense criticism from many, Marshall Sahlins writing that ‘it takes a heroic of utilitarian faith to conclude that this sacrificial system was a way the Aztecs had for getting more meat’(Sahlins,1978).

Ethnocentrism is largely involved in this kind of theory as modern scientific explanations are used to rationalise cultural practices in other societies (Anthropology,2001). In this way, one could see disadvantages in using this particular approach, in that little attention is directed towards contrasting other cultures with our own and understanding how non-western cultures conceptualise their environment, and instead a scientific perception is taken of all societies as a whole.

Harris at many points in both ‘Cultural Materialism’(1979) and ‘Good to Eat’(1986), seems to suggest that, as Danny Yee puts it, ‘science good; non-science bad’(Yee,1994) and indicates that a non-scientific approach to the subject is not valuable. What makes this view difficult to accept is that Harris applies it not only to the issue of food prohibitions but to social sciences as a whole, stipulating that there is no other useful way in which to interpret situations and ideas. This makes his view very restricted, something that is difficult to justify in the study of anthropology and the anthropology of food. However, as with cannibalism, food issues must be divided up into a way that makes them possible to study, and these categorisations cannot be approached through only one mode of thinking. Mary Douglas’ structuralist ideas offer an alternative.

In contrast to the materialist approach to food prohibitions, is that of the structuralist or symbolist, which suggests that all cultures ‘set boundaries between nature and culture, and use the opposition to understand myths, rituals and classification-systems’(Anthropology,2001). Mary Douglas has focused her work on the classification side of this theory, exploring the rules of pollution and taboo in her book ‘Purity and Danger’(1966). Douglas analyses the relationships between dietary rules and rituals concerning animals, and explores the abominations of Leviticus in the Old Testament in order to demonstrate her point. Here she asks questions such as ‘why should the camel, the hare and the rock badger be unclean?’(Douglas,1966,p.41) and deduces that holiness and impurity are at opposite poles, dietary laws being considered as a ‘symbolic system’(Anthropology,2001) in the Old Testament.

Referring back to the creation story of Genesis, Douglas stresses that keeping the categories of the original creation distinct, is of great importance. Alluding to this, she gives the example of the pig, which the Old Testament instructed the Israelites to eat on the condition that they were ‘cloven-hoofed, cud chewing ungulates’ (Leviticus 11: 1-47). Animals and other elements are required to conform to their own class and category, animals which do not associated with disorder, uncleanness and, ultimately, seen as unholy. The pig did not conform to the required order of things and, consequently, was seen as taboo by many societies. Douglas concludes that ‘dietary laws would have been like signs which at every turn inspired meditation on the oneness, purity and completeness of God’. By rules of avoidance, holiness was given a ‘physical expression…at every meal’(Douglas,1966,p.57).

Other theories have also been relied upon in the endeavour to understand certain dietary rules, including those that combine the materialist and structuralist approach and those that are entirely separate. Structural Marxism combines aspects of the structuralist approach with materialism, although vehemently dismissing materialist views. Eclecticism on the other hand, guarantees that its solutions, based on separate theoretical principles for each case, will ‘remain unrelated to each other by any coherent set of principles’(The Pantheon).

It is difficult to isolate one approach as being more correct or accurate than another, both theories illustrated in this chapter exposing flaws that suggest neither could be exclusively relied upon. Cultural materialism has been recognised by some as being ‘so elegant, so parsimonious, and so superior to competing paradigms that it is frankly amazing that it is not more widely accepted’(The Pantheon), however Marvin Harris’ view could well be put forward as also being arrogant and narrow in its approach. With the emphasis on science, it could be said that Harris suggests that ‘cultural materialism is the only valid scientific research strategy for the social sciences’ and that ‘functional explanations…are intrinsically more satisfying than symbolic ones’(Yee,1994). This approach is important in that it explains for many what would otherwise seem an irrational reason for prohibiting a type of food, however the study of food and the questions this study raises, need to be assessed from a multi-disciplinary point of view(Macbeth,1997). In a study for example, of famine, not only will an anthropological view be needed, but geological and biological assessment also.

Similarly, the approach of Mary Douglas cannot be regarded as one that can be exclusively relied upon. It fits into a group of theories that together can provide an accurate way of analysing this discipline. To ‘discover hidden meanings is what structuralism aims at’(Maquett,1974,p.123) and it is partly this which, for many, gives it its appeal. It leaves scope for the symbolic meanings in food and the different rules that govern it and, in this way, may be seen as a more tolerant approach to Harris’ in its willingness to look at a society’s foodways in relation to other unrelated cultural principles that it holds. However, structuralism resists scientific method that might be to its disadvantage, neglecting what is perhaps the real and rational method of deliberation. There is a danger of idealising the reasons for food prohibitions – relying on Bible passages for symbolic explanations as to why one should not eat pork, is a nice idea - and not looking further into the practical dynamics and inner workings of the society concerned.

Applying the Theory to Cannibalistic Practices

Harris assigned Aztec cannibalism as being a product of the scarcity of protein(1978); a structuralist might suggest that there were far more complex symbolic issues behind practices involving human consumption. The reason for sanctions to exist against particular foods in some societies and not in others has been discussed, but how does contemplation of these theories help to decipher the rules applying to cannibalism? Where contemporary reports of brutal cannibalism are uncovered, for example in the case of the 'Japanese cannibal'Issei Sagawa, shock and revulsion might at first have been the reaction from other members of Japanese society regarding Sagawa’s cannibalistic offence, but in recent times he has become a minor celebrity and source of fascination for many. In China, where cases of human placenta consumption are well documented(Yue,1999), it is forbidden to speak openly about such exploits. Such contradictory standards seem to be present in some societies, while in others cannibalism is an important part of a ritual or custom.

Why is cannibalism acceptable in some societies and not in others? Early theories have been discussed and these show the broad range of opinions once lacking in attempts to understand cannibalism and what is needed now in contemporary accounts of this practice. Harris gives practical reasons for both the groups who forbid cannibalism and those who practised it, the nutritional needs of the Aztecs being an example. Douglas’ theory would likely fit in with the justifications for this prohibition that the wider community might consider – namely that much of it has to do with how people see and treat other people, during life and after death.