The myths and perturbing realities of cannibalism

Incest and cannibalism are probably the two most widespread taboos in the world, and both are governed by interesting rules that dictate the appropriate social distances between self and others. The English anthropologist Edmund Leach observes that suitability for eating and marrying are assessed according to highly similar structural views. His argument is clearest if you think of the traditional way of life of ordinary rural people some years ago, when social mores were strong- er and populations more homogeneous religiously and ethnically. The phenomena Leach is analyzing are much diluted in today's urban societ, where easy travel, mass media, and frequent migrations have heightened anonymity, heterogeneity, and tolerance of varied life styles and beliefs. Similarly, these strictures wouldn't necessarily apply to special classes of people, such as religious and royal figures. Still, many of the beliefs Leach talks about -- the ways in which ordinary people define ''food'' and ''sexual partner'' -- linger in much of the English-speaking world. For example, pets, the animals closest to oneself, aren't considered food. A slightly more distant class, livestock, can be eaten, but generally only if immature or castrated. Game animals, a still more distant group, are acceptable as food if certain ritualistic provisions about how or when they're killed are fulfilled. Finally, the most remote category, exotic or unfamiliar animals, is considered unacceptable. A similar structure pertains to sexual relations/marriage. A brother or sister, who may be defined differently in different societies, is out as a marriage partner. The next closest category, cousin, may range from unmarriageable but suitable for adolescent romances (first cousin) to eminently marriageable. The optimal category is more distant: neighbors, who are close enough to be familiar (''like us'') without being out-and- out family.

Remote strangers are simply too far away to be serious candidates.

This may do a disservice to Leach's analysis by making it seem trivial. Remember that these are fundamental and deeply ingrained beliefs about behavior of crucial importance to human societies. Regulating and controlling this behavior is important to any group. There is even some overlap between edibility and sex/marriage that goes beyond a simple structural resemblance in the way categories are viewed. Consider the frequency with which ''dirty'' names for sexual parts are the same as terms used to describe either pets or dubiously edible animals; examples might be ''cock'' or ''pussy.'' As Leach has pointed out, this becomes less trivial when you realize that it pertains not only in English but also, for example, in Kachin, a Tibeto-Burman language. Obviously Kachin and English don't have these categories because of a recent, common linguistic or cultural heritage. These may be much more fundamental human rules about perceiv- ing and organizing the world.

If pets are too close to oneself to be edible, then how much worse it is to eat humans. Be- cause both cannibalism and incest violate rules of accepted distances, the two are often believed to be practiced together. Thus to accuse a group of both cannibalism and incest is tan- tamount to