The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy

by William Arens

Arens, after reviewing evidence from all fields and surveying the folktales and myths surrounding cannibalism, concludes that there is no evidence treating cannibalism as a socially approved custom

Genres: Anthropology, Nonfiction, History

Paperback

First published April 26, 1979

Reviews

[Insert name here · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book dissects the persistence of the belief in ritual cannibalism. (By "ritual" the author makes the distinction between the notion of the cannibal as a cultural norm, which he finds to be entirely mythical, and the cannibal as aberration--survival cannibalism or deviant cannibalism like Ed Gein or Jeffrey Dahmer.) Arens surveyed the most common, pervasive, and allegedly well-documented cases of ritual cannibalism and could not find a single reliable, first-hand account. Cannibals are always something that the next group over engaged in, or that the group in question formerly did but recently stopped. It is primarily an accusation against others. It is very relevant here that accusations of cannibalism are near universal, but Western academics dismiss accounts of cannibalism by Christians, Jews, Irish, etc. as lacking any basis in reality, but readily accept accounts of Africans, indigenous Americans, or Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders as factual despite having no greater evidence. In reality, most such accounts begin as either a Western explorer starting out with the assumption that the people he encounters are cannibals, and refusing to accept any answer otherwise, or accepting at face value one group's claim that their rivals are cannibals, without any attempt to check the truth of the claim--and in either case, other explorers and academics repeat the initial accusation so often that it acquires the status of truth, despite never having been substantiated in the first place.

(It is interesting to note one of the reviews here on Goodreads claiming to have read the book and then insisting that "I don't agree with him that cannibalism is a myth"--an excellent example of exactly the sort of attitude he is analyzing, one in which the truth of a matter is assumed, and any evidence to the contrary is then dismissed no matter how conclusive, and without any awareness of the complete lack of any actual evidence for the claim in the first place. If you repeat something often enough, it acquires the ring of truth completely independent of whether it corresponds to any actually existing phenomenon in reality. As Arens points out, when you start with the assumption that people in New Guinea are cannibals, evidence, beyond just hearsay, is not required.)

Which is what makes this book much more than just another book debunking some cultural stereotype. Arens uses cannibalism to explore the larger issue of how Westerners, particularly academics, construct and rationalize notions of difference and the "other", in this case using alleged liberalism to attack ethnocentrism in order to actually reinforce a more subtle ethnocentrism. Essentially they set up "cannibal" as a different cultural norm and claim it is simply a normal and valuable part of human variation, and therefore place it in opposition to those who would view allegedly cannibalistic cultures with scorn and a civilizing mission--but do so in order to elevate their own, Western, "civilized" selves as tolerant, open-minded, and thus culturally superior. As Arens notes, Western academics need there to be "primitives" in order to claim to be able to define themselves as "civilized".

[Viktoria]

“Anthropology and anthropophagy, as views of the external world, have had a comfortable and supportive relationship. It is possible that in their present form one could not exist without the other.”

Arens' essay on cannibalism, although flawed, is thought-provoking.

The strong part of the book, in my opinion, is his musings on how the accusation of cannibalism serves as a border between ”us” and “them”, the known and the unknown, the civilized and the barbarians.

The biggest flaw in his work is that he takes the lack of evidence for evidence, for example - his biggest argument about the nonexistence of cannibalism as a ”cultural custom” is the lack of first-hand evidence.

Nevertheless, I found “The Man-Eating Myth” to be quite an interesting read and it certainly challenged some of my viewpoints (which this book is about, after all).

“The significant question is not why people eat human flesh, but why one group invariably assumes that others do.”

[Krista the Krazy Kataloguer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, but I don't agree with him that cannibalism is a myth.

[Kristen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was written by my Anthropology teacher at Stony Brook University. It was an amazing book, as well as an amazing class! Though I do believe he was proven wrong (evidence of cannibalism is sufficient to conclude that some cultures did practice it in certain rituals), his theories are worth considering.

I think he does justice to other cultures for trying to humanize them again, after they were vilified in times of imperialism.

[la tida · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm glad that I had to read this. It brought up some good points and cleared up other things. I had no idea how the connection between eating and sex was so serious! It gave me a better understanding of the word, "maneater" that is attached to lusty women and why men are referred to as "stud muffins" or "meat." "I could eat him up with a spoon"! That cannibalistic expression always struck me as odd. The Venus Fly Trap comes to mind. I wonder what the author thinks of the female praying mantis.

[Lauren Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting read if not entirely left field. Every time I showed the title to friends, the assumption was that the non-fiction focused on a guide to relationships. I am deffinetly more knowing about the taboos around eating ones partner.

The man-eating myth attempts to debunk assumptions of otherness which have dehumanised non-western cultures in recent decades. The work gives some interesting examples through time and is thoroughly readable.

[Elliott Ford · Rating 2 out of 5]

While an interesting contribution to the field, Arens is far off the mark in his analysis of cannibalism and it’s acceptance amongst human society. His examples are flawed, and his conclusions are misguided. Regardless, Arens asks a worthy introspective question on the extent to which we believe these stories of flesh-eating men and women. Although the skepticism is left unchecked, there is still something valuable here.

[Lucius · Rating 5 out of 5]

super interesting! very interesting points are raised -- caused quite the stir in the anthropological world, so i've heard...

[Joel Rubin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Professor Arens argues controversially that there are no credible accounts of cannibalism in classical anthropology or in history. He makes the case that the Catholic Eucharist ceremony (in which one eats a wafer representing the body of Christ) represents more plausible "evidence" for cannibalism than many of the anecdotes about supposed man-eating cultures found in anthropology textbooks. He's doing the classic switcheroo of naive realism and ethnocentrism, but turning it back at anthropologists themselves.

[Lucas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very useful guide to some of the more salacious stories that are still bruited about in some circles of the scientific community. Still, the stickiness of the idea and the difficulty of removing its taint may be some sort of evidence for our primordial sins. We may never wash our hands entirely of the matter.

[Forked Radish]

People eat radishes, so why shouldn't people eat people too? They're basically the same except that people tend to scream annoyingly, are harder to peel, and have lots of icky blood which stains everything.

[Lious Moco · Rating 5 out of 5]

I see why it ruffled feathers.

[Kirk Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book will likely increase your distrust of established academic conventions, though for a book so against the grain one might have hoped for more comprehensive coverage of the topic. I have no way of knowing whether the basic premise is accurate or insidious, but it definitely makes for an entertaining and/if snarky read and will make for good conversation on your next otherwise superlame date.