Meat Is Good to Taboo: Dietary Proscriptions as a Product of the Interaction of Psychological Mechanisms and Social Processes

Daniel M. T. Fessler, Carlos Navarrete

Journal of Cognition and Culture · 2003 · 304 citations · 96 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Concepts

TL;DR

Existing functionalist and symbolic theories fail to explain meat’s cross‑cultural centrality as a taboo, especially given its strong association with disgust. The study proposes an evolutionary explanation for food taboos, focusing on meat as the primary target of proscriptions. It identifies three psychosocial processes—socially mediated ingestive conditioning, egocentric empathy, and normative moralization—that convert individual disgust responses into institutionalized taboos. Across 78 cultures, meat is consistently the main food subject to taboos.

Abstract

Abstract Comparing food taboos across 78 cultures, this paper demonstrates that meat, though a prized food, is also the principal target of proscriptions. Reviewing existing explanations of taboos, we find that both functionalist and symbolic approaches fail to account for meat's cross-cultural centrality and do not reflect experience-near aspects of food taboos, principal among which is disgust. Adopting an evolutionary approach to the mind, this paper presents an alternative to existing explanations of food taboos. Consistent with the attendant risk of pathogen transmission, meat has special salience as a stimulus for humans, as animal products are stronger elicitors of disgust and aversion than plant products. We identify three psychosocial processes, socially-mediated ingestive conditioning, egocentric empathy, and normative moralization, each of which likely plays a role in transforming individual disgust responses and conditioned food aversions into institutionalized food taboos.

References

96