Meat, markets, and mechanical materialism: The great protein fiasco in anthropology

In recent years, many ecological anthropolo? gists have attributed a critical role in cultural change to animal protein and the cultural me? chanisms by which it is obtained. A symposium at the 1979 American Anthropological Associa? tion Meetings, for example, was based on the premise that, "Because of the nutritional ad? vantages of animal protein, there is selection for cultura} traits that raise rather than lower per capita consumption of animal protein" [2], while in another context Harris remarks that for any population facing periodic wars, fam? ines, or other crises, "there really is no mini? mum safe protein ration" [3]. In this paper, we argue that recent research in the nutritional sciences make such a "protein hypothesis" untenable. Although an emphasis upon protein characterized many nutritional planning and development projects during the 1960's, 'There is a mounting recognition that the emphasis which has been given to the role of protein in human undernutrition, resulting in the claim that there is a global protein "gap", "crisis", or "problem", is wrong" [4]. Rejec? tion of the "protein hypothesis" is now very widespread in the nutritional sciences. Omissions and factual errors flaw discussions of "protein determinism" in ecological anthro? pology, but as important to consider are the theoretical and epistemological problems which lay behind such errors. Assumptions of posi? tive function and technical objectivity have led many anthropologists to seek concepts defined in biological terms and biological terms only [5]. As a result, anthropologists have at times attempted to explain cultural phenomena solely in natural science terms. Not only has this led to major misunderstand? ings of uniquely-human cultural creations [6], it has also resulted in a failure to appreciate the cultural grounding of the physical and biological sciences. We will first document the exaggerated role protein nutrition has come to play in cultural ecological explanations. Next, we will contrast this exaggerated role with the more modest position protein plays in contemporary nutri? tional thought concerning human undernutri tion. Third, we will demonstrate how some cultural ecologists have erroneously applied nutritional ideas through a critique of the views of one such "protein determinist", Marvin Harris. Finally, we will reject the assumptions of positive function and technical objectivity and, instead, will propose a cultural explanation for the "protein myth" [7]. We Paul Diener is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale; Kurt Moore and Robert Mutaw study Anthropology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.