Cows Harris, Marvin. Pig Lovers

Cows

Harris, Marvin. "Pig lovers and pig haters." From Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches. New York, 1974, pp.35-57.

The pig has been one of the defining symbols of human food culture. Some religions and populations reject the consumption of pork while others embrace pig consumption. According to Marvin Harris' essay on "Pig lovers and pig haters," both irrational and rational reasons have been used to explain the anti-pork taboo in the major Near Eastern religions of Judaism and Islam, and as a point of comparison, the pig-obsessed culture of the Maring of New Guinea. Harris believes that both case studies of attitudes towards pork provide a potent point of comparison of how need and environment can 'create' a food culture, and what seems like apparently random prohibitions actually can be explained by rational forces. It is because of different environmental demands that Judaism and Islam came to hate pigs as unclean, while the Maring are "fanatic pig lovers" who allow pigs to roam freely for eight to ten years until they grow too numerous and then are ritually slaughtered (Harris 36).

In some eyes, the ancient Jewish or Muslim taboo on pork might seem strange, if food is scarce. On a practical level, pigs are an easy source of protein: They "convert grains and tubers into high-grade fats and protein more efficiently than any other animal" (Harris 36). But pigs have famously been declared "unclean" and unfit to eat, despite this fact, for religious reasons that are still embraced by Jews and Muslims today. The prohibition of such a potentially useful food in Islam and Judaism does appear "inconsistent," to the uninitiated, why allow grasshoppers but not pigs (Harris 36)? Explicit explanations from great religious leaders came later. Maimonides said swine had a "bad and damaging effect on the bodies," a sentiment echoed, of course by many cardiologists (Harris 37). Judaism's prohibition of the pig thus has, in keeping with Maimonides been seen as a kind of precursory knowledge of trichinosis by more scientifically minded reform Jews in modernity (Harris 37) However, Harris points out that cattle, sheep, and goats, freely consumed by Jews and Muslims, are also vehicles of disease (Harris 38). Thus this after-the-fact explanation in religious terms by Maimonides leaves something to be desired.

The question remains: why single out the pig? Rejecting after entertaining largely cultural explanations, such as the idea that perhaps pigs were the favored diet of rival clans of the ancient Near Eastern tribes, Harris argues that eschewing pork is really a sound ecological strategy that was the result to the need to support a herding economy. Israelites could not raise pigs in their arid habitat; their resources were better suited to herding cattle and the other cloven-hoof animals allowed for consumption under Mosaic Law, while the pig was ill-adapted to the heat (Harris 41). This lack of adaptability also explains why pigs are seen as particularly unclean in these faiths. Harris notes that above temperatures at 85F, pigs tend to excrete in their pens indiscriminately while in cooler temperatures pigs do not (Harris 43). In short, the sources of the pig's evocation of revulsion are complex, but can be traced to the environment. Disgust of pigs has its roots in a mix of culture and necessity, but primarily necessity.

As a point of contrast, amongst the pig-loving Maring of New Guinea, the pig also serves a rational function in the tribe's food culture, despite apparently irrational cultural practices. Amongst the Maring, pigs are validated and even celebrated (Harris 47). The Maring are called true "pig lovers" because pigs are not regularly consumed until there is "enough pigs" when the animals begin to overrun the area (Harris 51). Again, Harris has a rational explanation for this so-called irrational practice: there are not enough resources to raise domestic pigs as a regular source of food. Although allowing them to live eight years after reaching adult size seems inefficient, so would using pigs as a main, rather than occasional source of protein. (Harris 51). Thus the prohibitions and promotion of pig consumption and other animals (such as the regulations against eating beef in Hinduism) becomes a complicated blend of the demands of practicality and ideology, as well as social conditions. Ultimately, all food practices have their roots in the environment. Eating pork becomes bad for the health in Judaism, because of the way pigs behave in hot weather, and the difficulties of keeping them in the original habitat of the ancient Hebrews, but then this prohibition becomes religious -- only after the original environmental conditions are rendered healthful does the prohibition seems peculiar and irrational, until another rationale is found for believers to adhere to the old tradition.

Article Reflections:

Harris, Marvin. "Mother Cow." From Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches, New York, 1974, pp.11-35.

Harris, Marvin. "Pig lovers and pig haters." From Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches, New York, 1974, pp.35-57.

A common argument in favor of the irrationality of religion is cited by evoking India, a nation, it is alleged, where people starve yet cows wander the streets. However, Marvin Harris argues in his essay "Mother Cow" that India makes far more advantageous use of its cattle than the wasteful United States. (Harris 31). The original reason for the Indian taboo upon cows was because oxen were needed to plow the fields and cows were needed to breed and give birth to the next generation of oxen. Kill the cow, and eat for a day, let the cow live and eat for the rest of your life, to adapt another adage to the circumstances. Thus, Hindus came to venerate cows because they became the symbol of everything that is animate, "alive" and sacred (Harris 14). Harris' article "Mother Cow" reflects intent upon being a 'myth buster' of many erroneous Western assumptions about Hinduism, such as the fact that the taboo upon beef consumption is at the heart of the disproportionate ratio of beef to oxen in the region (Harris 29).

Mother Cow" is similar to Harris' essay "Pig lovers and pig haters" in that he tries to find rational explanations for apparently irrational religious taboos. To some extent, his anthropological work does seem substantiated by recent data -- America's obsession with consuming beef has resulted in a wasteful use of environmental resources, and pork does pose a danger of trichinosis, for example. Even the use of animal protein in small, rather than frequent doses amongst the New Guinea Maring, who only slaughter pigs when they overrun the tribes' living area, and never before, has some value in adapting the tribe to exterior circumstances. But Harris' technique of using 'after the fact' explanations seems to fly in the face of the often irrational food choices all human beings make over the course of their daily lives. Food is likely an intersection of environment and culture, and suggesting that environment produces culture in a very causal fashion seems suspicious -- after all, if pigs are so unclean, why did some tribes in warm regions consume them? It is always more ecologically friendly to serve a large population with vegetable protein, so why is 'cow love' not endemic to all land-poor societies? Instead, Harris blithely asserts: "Cow love perpetuates the latent capacity of humans to persevere in a low-energy ecosystem" where little waste is possible (Harris 30). So why are not all poor societies vegetarian, and why not eat cows occasionally, as the Maring eat pigs occasionally?