It is an undeniable fact that cultures of different peoples have traditions and customs that these peoples for thousands of years have practiced, but at the same time, from the point of view of another cultural environment seems wild. Interestingly, customs such as painful punctures of body parts, cannibalism, or cutting off fingers as a sign of sorrow still exist today. The purpose of this article is to analyze the manifestation of human culture, such as cannibalism, which is perceived negatively by society in the most developed countries.
The basic principle of anthropology is the so-called cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is a trend in the study of the culture of peoples, which recognizes the absolute equality of each culture, the right to identity, and incommensurability with other cultures. Cultural relativism is manifested in emphasizing the differences between the cultures of different peoples, differences in worldview, thinking, and attitude of peoples. That is, all cultures are considered equal in importance but qualitatively different. In other words, to study cannibalism, we need to eliminate the visible emotional components of this issue and recognize that cannibalism, as a cultural phenomenon of some nationalities, has the right to exist.
Cannibalism includes eating the flesh of others by some people. In the view of the common man, given the average cultural values of the citizens of the developed world, a cannibal is an unhealthy person with a mental disorder who shamelessly and coldly treats people (Chambers 86). However, it should be noted that the concept of cannibalism is much broader and more multifaceted. Nature knows many examples of cannibalism among animals, both primitive and highly organized. Without this process, there would be no balance within ecosystems in the animal world (Ostrosky & Alfredo 96). For example, in order to prevent the products of rot from contaminating ants, some ants correctly eat their dead brethren.
The phenomenon of cannibalism lies in its historical value. According to SaladiĂ© and RodrĂguez-Hidalgo, most of the peoples and settlements formed at the dawn of humanity went through a period when they ate other people (1035). Important rituals were performed, for example, in the civilizations of Mesopotamia and Phoenicia. In addition, anthropologists have long been trying to find out what the cannibal rituals of Aztec culture are based on. Every year, more than 20,000 people have been sacrificed to Tlaloc, the god of rain, thunder, and crops.
The Aztec gods demanded human casualties every day; otherwise, the world would be in danger of being destroyed. On the tops of the sacral pyramids in front of the statues of the supreme gods, four priests held the sacrifice by the arms and legs, and the fifth ripped out the beating heart. Limbs and other parts of the body were prepared for food for rich adepts of Aztec religion: pious townspeople tore them to pieces and ate them. This way, Aztecs were sanctifying their pyramids, paying tribute to the gods.
From cultural relativism, cannibalism as a cultural phenomenon cannot be viewed through the prism of moral attitudes. It is necessary to admit that all cultures are equal and the fact that in some settlements, it is historically accepted to eat people. For this purpose, it is proposed to place this phenomenon in the context of the cultural code. In some parts of the world, such as West Africa, there are still tribes that eat their relatives during ritual practices or because of hunger and fear (Chambers 86).
As early as 50 years ago, Cambodian troops ate the liver of the people they had killed, and in the 1930s in the Soviet Union, deported to a desert island in the taiga, people ate each other because they had no other sources of food.
The practice of cannibalism can be seen as a way of enjoying food, which is inextricably linked to meeting sexual and nutritional needs (Ostrosky & Alfredo 97). In addition, the causes of this cultural phenomenon can be identified through self-sacrifice, cannibalism for war, and the most common domestic cannibalism among murderers (SaladiĂ© & RodrĂguez-Hidalgo 1038). All this, in one way or another, confirms different approaches to the study of cannibalism through the paradigm of a specific cultural code.
Another version of the genesis of cannibalism is the evolutionary engine that drives people to eat more nutrients. Biologists explain that in nature, the phenomenon of cannibalism among people more often has a positive adaptive meaning. It is a type of natural selection as a driving force of evolution. It is interesting to note that in different cultures, the act of anthropophagy included the use of the victim’s brain as food. Modern scientific research agrees that this is justified by the nutritional value of brain tissue (RodrĂguez, Zorrilla-Revilla, & Mateos 233). Children and adolescents were often used as victims in rituals, which can be explained by the highest caloric value of the brain at this age. Therefore, as the authors claim, cannibalism can be viewed in terms of survival strategies.
The significance of the act of anthropophagy is individual-cultural nature. For example, for some people, cannibalism is just a way to survive days, while for others, after the death of their loved one, they consume them, so the last one becomes part of the partner. It is hypocritical to think that people involved in anthropophagy are negative individuals. Suffice it to recall, for example, that many of us still often eat our nails, and some women from developed countries feed their families the placenta after childbirth for health promotion. Or the way Christians consume the blood and flesh of Jesus for good, there is precisely such anthropophagy, only “right” (SaladiĂ© & RodrĂguez-Hidalgo 1036).
Given that, for most cultures, the act of cannibalism is nothing but survival, it is difficult for me to argue that there is a mismatch between this and other cultural expressions that make us uncomfortable.
Southeast Papua New Guinea is home to a Korowai who eats human meat regularly. There have been cases where they have slaughtered random tourists. If someone in the tribe dies for no apparent reason, they consider it a matter of black magic and, in order to protect others from harm, must eat a man. The majority of tribesmen do not support those who disagree with this position. It is undeniable that there are people in the tribe who have a negative attitude towards the act of cannibalism. Still, if they express their opinion, there is a high probability that they will be eaten.
Reasons that lie in the rejection of cannibalism in a culture where it is considered normal may include the latest scientific discoveries in this field. According to scientific research, cannibalism is a hazardous phenomenon, and all practitioners are advised not to use the brains of the deceased. Kuru disease, which can be transmitted through the brain of a corpse, is very similar to rabies cow disease. Kuru in the brain accumulates abnormal glycoprotein, known as prion protein. According to Liberski, Gajos, Sikorska, and Lindenbaum, “Even completely drunk would conclude that a disease endemic among cannibals must be spread through eating corpses” (235). The disease mainly affected children and women; in some villages, the female half of the population disappeared altogether.
Evaluating cannibalism through the prism of cultural relativism is not a difficult task. There is no doubt that acts of cannibalism everywhere violate the fundamental right of every human being – the right to life. Hundreds and thousands of children, adolescents, and adults die in agony because they are victims of rituals or merely the only source of food for their fellow tribesmen. On the part of my cultural code, I would never consume other people’s flesh for rituals, sexual desires, or competition. But one cannot ignore how such phenomena in the course of evolution have helped our ancestors survive in harsh conditions (Liberski, Gajos, Sikorska, & Lindenbaum 248).
If they hadn’t consumed the meat of their relatives, we wouldn’t exist today. This is probably the only moment in which I can partially support the idea of cannibalism. There are many examples in the modern history of mountaineering in deadly situations in the mountains and of eating friends to survive (Ostrosky & Alfredo 96). But it seems to me that a person who once learned the taste of another person’s flesh will never be the same again. His moral attitude will change at the same time, and his permissiveness will expand. Today’s world is not so cruel for people, and we have plenty of food and water. I believe that developed countries should provide humanitarian assistance to tribes, such as Africa, to eradicate cannibalism because the only aspect that could justify this phenomenon is now easily solvable.
Works Cited
Chambers, Tod. “Eating One’s Friends: Fiction as Argument in Bioethics.” Literature and Medicine, vol. 34, no.1, 2016, pp. 79-105.
Liberski, Pawel, Agata Gajos, Beata Sikorska, and Shirley Lindenbaum. “Kuru, the First Human Prion Disease.” Viruses, vol. 11, no.3, 2019, pp. 232-257.
Ostrosky, Feggy, and Alfredo Ardila. Neuropsychology of Criminal Behavior. Routledge, 2017.
RodrĂguez, JesĂşs, Zorrilla-Revilla Guillermo, and Mateos Ana. “Does Optimal Foraging Theory Explain the Behavior of the Oldest Human Cannibals?” Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 131, no. 1, 2019, pp. 228-239.
SaladiĂ©, Palmira, and Antonio RodrĂguez-Hidalgo. “Archaeological Evidence for Cannibalism in Prehistoric Western Europe: From Homo Antecessor to the Bronze Age.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 24, no. 4, 2017, pp. 1034-1071.