Vanessa Robinson a1160096 Environmentalists regularly denounce meat production as ecologically unsound, yet there seem to be insuperable obstacles

to reining in meat consumption. From an anthropological perspective, what form do the main obstacles take in the 21st century.

As a global society humans have taken multiple actions to decrease their environmental impact on the world. Many communities and schools educate and encourage individuals to recycle and to use products that decrease their carbon footprint. However, even with increased reports of the devastation caused by deforestation and the heightened effects of methane gas caused by farming cattle, why are we still unwilling to curve our meat consumption? Especially in countries like Australia, where on average people consume their own weight in meat each year (Peace, 2008 p5). To understand meat consumption from an anthropological perspective there will be a firm investigation of symbolic meaning associated with meat consumption with regards to culture, history and masculinity. Thus, exploring why meat plays such an important role in our lives, other than just satisfying our taste buds.

Environmentalists have previously criticized meat production as an ecologically unsound practice that inefficiently produces protein and negligently accelerates deforestation (Opie 1993). Nick Fiddes states that the litany of social and environmental sin associate with meat production could almost make one feel that meat alone is responsible for bringing the world to a state of ecological crisis (Fiddes 1991, p210). It is through these various ethical issues associated with Western society meat consumption that can be credited to the growing number of vegetarians and vegans. Previous research comparing energy from flora and meat products has encouraged a movement away from meat. As it is found for every kilogram of beef produced ten kilograms of grain is required (Mathews 2006). Previous research has shown that 'England could be fed from 10 million acres of the existing 46 million acres of agricultural land if plant food was grown and eaten directly (Fiddes 1991, p211). Scientist have warned that deforestation for cattle farming has serious effects on the hydrological cycle. Research has also found that methane gas is twenty times more effective at trapping solar radiation in comparison to carbon dioxide. The federal government warned the public in 2005 that Australias livestock will produce substantially more warming over the next twenty years than all of Australias coal power stations put together

(Matthews 2006).

It is not surprising that meat consumers were concerned that these revelations would affect meat consumption. This lead to Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) to release a number of advertisements with the same underlying recommendation, red meat, we were meant to eat it. MLA encouraged Australians to eat meat by promoting it as an essential, natural and healthy food that should be eaten daily. These advertisements used an anthropological view on meat consumption, which was used to help promote the symbolic meaning associated with humans and meat consumption. The advertisements identified red meat as a foundation food for a healthy and balanced diet and led to an increase in meat consumption. The MLA advertisements that were identified as the Red Meat-Feel good campaigns were extremely effective with Australias red meat consumption increasing from $8 billion in 2006-07 to $9 billion in 2008-09 (Peace 2008). But the most influential part of the campaign was the MLAs advertisements that were launched to coincide during the commonwealth games. Some of the worlds best physiques being on show, and thus aiming for viewers to affiliate red meat with the healthy, masculine bodies of the sporting identities.

The MLA used an underlying theme for their advertisements that was focused on identifying meat as our natural food habitus inherited from our ancestors. This is iterated in the advertisements with Sam Neil preaching meat consumption. The viewer associates Sam Neil with the ancestral and natural character he plays in Jurassic Park (Peace 2008). The advertisement featuring Sam Neil advocates the craving for red meat has been central to our evolution as the superior species. The natural proteins helped our brains grow, hunting forced our brains to think, red meat was helping us come to be (Peace 2008, p6). Sam Neil also promoted red meat as an instinctive behavior in which our ancestors have been eating for the past two million years we instinctively desire red meat for its nutrients, Omega-3s , zinc, iron, B12, which provides us with vitality and well-being. He also claims that if our early ancestors hadnt eaten red meat, our brains wouldnt be the size they are today. The protein and nutrients in red meat helped brain growth and what followed was the incredible advancement of the human species (Peace 2008, p6). The advertisements ended with Sam Neil recommending humans should eat the same quantity of red meat as our ancestors lean meat three or four times a week is still an essential part of the diet of the most

highly developed species on the planet (Peace 2008, p6). Therefore, implying that by just following our instincts, we will be able to obtain a natural and healthy diet, much as our ancestors did in the past (Peace 2008, p7).

Coinciding with the MLA Red Meat-Feel good campaign, Lionel Tiger a professor of Anthropology from New Jersey visited Australia. Tiger claimed that meat cravings were as instinctual to the average Aussie as our desire for human touch (Peace 2008, p9). Tiger also promoted the idea that evolution has imprinted meat eating on to Australians DNA and that barbeques are instinctual to our being, that it is a reminiscent from our ancient campfires (Peace 2008). Tiger also denoted to the vegetarians of Australia that it is natural for our taste buds to crave meat and that those cravings had to be satisfied. Tiger encouraged vegetarians that they need to compensate for their lack of meat in a nutritious meal, and the only possible way to do so was to have a piece of meat (Peace 2008, p9).

For many people in Western society, a meal of only vegetables is not a meal at all. Many of us, and the society in general, consider meat eating normal, it is part of our habitus, of what we take for granted (Delaney 2004, p291). Mary Douglas, a British anthropologist who studied human culture and symbolism researched extensively regarding the structure of a meal in a typical English household from 1960-1970. Douglas established a weekly routine that established a proper meal, it consisting of meat and two vegetables (Douglas 1978). Anne Murcott an English anthropologist, who was largely influenced by the work of Mary Douglas went further to define a meal as potatoes, two vegetables of different color, one from above the ground and one from below, with a centre piece of meat and finished off with a covering of gravy on a large plate. The importance of meat is also acknowledged by the way meat is still the dominant essence of a meal. That the meat represents a meal, as people commonly name the type of meat, pork, roast lamb or steak rather then the subordinate side dishes when asking their parent or partner what is for dinner (Gvion Rosenberg 1990). Meat eating has been integrated into a structure of social values that may or may not have anything to do with nutrition. Many families would probably agree to an extent with Tiger and the MLA campaigns that meat has an important nutrients value. Fiddes (1991) found that in a study of British families, only five women out of two hundred thought that meat was not an important item of the family diet. However,

nutrients are not the sole reason meat is such an important part of our culture. Anthropologists have long expressed an interest in the symbolic meanings of meat consumption. Fiddes (1991) believes food plays a role of expressing our relationship amongst one another and the environment, the sharing of food can symbolize shared ideology and therefore create group affiliation. So when it comes to food consumption we especially as a Western society centrally focus on meat products as the meal to fit the shared ideology of our peers (Fiddes 1991). Palmer (1994) further expresses the importance of meat in a meal and states that meat is not just one food ingredient available but it is one meal in itself. The term meatless meal is a prime indicator of the symbolic meaning of the importance of meat in a meal. Further still, meat once meant food but today it has been narrowed down to only mean the flesh of animals, whilst even fish and poultry are loosing the title meat (Fiddes 1991). Fiddes has also stated that meat plays a superior role in different cultures, social groups and periods of history but there has always been one shared, significant symbol, that the higher the income bracket the greater the proportion of meat products in the diet. This was also evident as the difference in eating was more significantly based on class rather then geographically. Globally meat consumption symbolizes a better standard of living as well as fitting in with societies culture norms and thus meat not only symbolizes a nutritional substance, but represents a way of life.

Michael Horton, a British Anthropologist stated that sharing food was a culturally important activity and that humans as homo-sapiens were programmed to do so through out evolution (Peace 2008). Horton also commented that it is hardly surprising that even today our behavior is influenced from our long evolution, such as why men enjoy cooking outside on their barbeques, but women still have a role preparing vegetables (Peace 2008 p7). Barbeque not only symbolize our historic culture but it is also understood as a devout and patriotic act.

Western men are socialized into adopting beliefs and behaviors about masculinity by the active and passive efforts of other men and women (Neuhaus 1999). There are two attributes to a man that are believed to go hand in hand; masculinity and patriotism. This can be derived from the masculine image of a soldier going off to war to fight for his country (Sobal 2005). Today, in Australia there is nothing more patriotic and masculine than cooking a barbeque, especially on days such as Australia Day. Not only is

this supported by Horton identifying the two different gender roles associated with the preparation of the barbeque but other practices that are carried out on special occasions. Occasions such as Australia day where it is the males job, like in primal days, to secure the meat for the families feast. Sobal believes that it has becomes a male bonding experience as the men fantasize over the meat, the same as when hunting (Sobal 2005).

Jeffery Sobal (2005) said that gender permeates all aspects of life, and that singular masculinity analyses are essentialist perspectives that assume the dominance of one set of male norms in a particular society.. that drive and structure mens actions, including food choices (Sobal 2005 p136). Food is an object that is inscribed with many meanings, representing ethnicity, nationality, region, class, age, sexuality, culture, and (perhaps most importantly) gender (Sobal 2005 p136). Meat is symbolically grounded in images of men engaging in masculine activities of hunting and since then, meat has long been the symbol of man flexing their proverbial muscle over the natural world (Fiddes 1991). This is why today meat still reinforces the presumption that killing, cooking and eating other animals flesh provides perhaps the ultimate authentication of human superiority over the rest of nature, with the spilling of their blood a vibrant motif (Fiddes 1991 p65). Thus, men demonstrate their power by dominating other species in nature, acting as carnivores who engage in aggressive acts to bring home food, as providers for the family (Fiddes 1991). This belief of killing animals as a masculine trait is still very apparent today with abattoirs and butchers work being very male dominant industries. Most women feel uncomfortable at the thought of killing animals and some unsure of the meat preparing process. In 1990 an English mother was asked if she were willing to kill an animal for dinner, she responded I dont think I could. I think I would probably starve.(Fiddes 1991, p13)

Sobal states that a singular model of masculinity suggests that gender-typing defines meat as an exemplar of masculine food, grounded in traditions of hunting, which makes vegetarianism problematic for men (Sobal 2005 p144). Only a very small proportion (30%) of Vegetarians are male (Beardsworth and Keil 1997). Therefore, to eat in a masculine manner men eat meat. Meat is a symbol of accomplishing maleness by the relict behavior of eating animals that were or at least could have been hunted, and therefore symbolizes conquering of the beast (Fiddes 1991). By surrounding meat with the

associational cluster of history, tradition, masculinity and health, meat consumption solidifies meat as an essential, social and powerful item.

Patrick West states that for Englishmen meat posses almost homeopathies qualities; the man who eats steak will be given the strength of a bull (West 2000, p17) This is also linked to why red meat is more popular with men over white meat. The animals that produce white meat such as chickens, do not possess the masculine and powerful traits that are associated with a bull. Ghandi believed that metaphorically we consume the animals strength through eating its muscles, he stated by consuming a physical substance one can somehow partake of its essence (Fiddes 1991, p67).

Children have traditionally been brought up to regard consuming the flesh of other animals for food as both normal and desirable, meat being what Boudieu calls our habitus (Fiddes 1991). It is not normally until children are at the age of six that they start to wonder where their food comes from. Various anthropologists have posed contradictory views on the way in which meat is presented in a disguised manner so people feel comfortable about consuming meat. It is normally at this age that children learn that meals are labeled in less graphical terms that dont make people acknowledge what they are buying from the supermarket. Instead of asking for dead cow they ask for our labeled terms steak or Tbone. Other forms of producing meat in an industrial society friendly way is in the production of McDonalds hamburger, as the stark savagery of the red meat is camouflaged by two bread rolls. Fiddes (1991) perspective on mass-produced hamburgers as an effective way to divorce consumption of meat from its ecological context is Fast flesh emporia entice the consumer with sanitized gratification, here everybody smiles, whilst health, welfare and environmental implications are banished to another less seductive world (Fiddes 1991, p67). It is not only through this camouflaging of meat that humans are able to remove themselves from the barbaric motion of killing animals but also from the ecologically unsound practice of eating meat.

The food we select reflects our thoughts, including our conception of our actual or desired way of life and our perception of whom we wish to identify with. Familiarity or tradition is commonly said to govern food choice. We prefer the familiar, we know how to order them, what to accompany them, the

variability of our choice and what to expect (Fiddes 1991 p34). Furthermore, we understand the rules of the common food, so we are uneager to stray away from it. This is relevant with chefs, as recipes familiar to a cook are likely to limit the variety, as preparation of the known is easier and less time consuming. More importantly people find comfort in eating the common, as we know it is not harmful. Levi-Strauss (1973) regards meat as the essential food, stating that routine cooking even though not implied symbolizes the cooking of meat in most cultures especially Western ones.

Meat eating especially in the Western hemisphere has become an important part of our culture. Culture is one of the hardest systems to change, as it is embedded in our being and is the base for our beliefs and attitudes. As it is created, altered and taught through years of tradition. Therefore, as long as meat testifies to belonging in a social group it is likely that consumption will continue, regardless of possible detrimental affects on human health and the natural environment (Heinz 1998). As one may buy a certain commodity. because its possession testifies to enrollment in certain stratum of society (Burke 1973, Pg9). Until meat no longer creates a strong, shared ideology associated with masculinity, culture and a sense of being, meat consumption will not cease. This is why meat campaigns created by the MLA have taken an anthropological approach to target human belief and symbolic importance of meat to reiterate this ideology. Therefore it is unlikely that even though we are aware of the damaging effects of meat consumption we are unlikely to change from the routines and beliefs of our food habitus. With increasing ecological concern surrounding meat consumption, the government will still face large hurdles to rein in meat consumption. They will face a battle to alter the symbolic meaning of gender, history and culture associated with human meat consumption. Especially with the pleasure and gratitude associated with the consumption of a big juicy steak, or McDonalds burger for a typical Aussie male, as these pleasures override and demolish any ethical thoughts for the environment.

Word 2902

References

Beardsworth, A., and Keil, T. (1997) Sociology on the Menu: An Invitation to the

Study of Food and Society. New York: Routledge.

Burke, K (1973) The philosophy of literary form. Berkeley: University of California Press Delaney, C. 2004. Investigating Culture: An Experiential Introduction to Anthropology. Blackwell Publishing

Douglas, M. (1978) Culture, Annual Report of the Russel Sage Foundation, (1):55-81.

Fiddes, N. (1991) Meat, a natural symbol, Routledge Publishing, New York, p11-40.

Gvion Rosenberg, L. (1990) Why do vegetarian restaurants serve hamburgers? Toward an understanding of cuisine. Semiotica, 80:6179.

Heinz, B. and Lee, R. (1998) Getting Down to Meat: the symbolic construction of meat consumption. Communication Studies 49(1):86-00.

Levi-Strauss, C. (1973) From Honey To Ashes, London: Cape

Matthews, C. (2006) Environmental Issues & Options, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, (1):1-4.

Neuhaus, J. 1999. The way to a mans heart: Gender roles, domestic ideology, and cookbooks in the 1950s. Journal of Social History, 32(3):529555.

Opie, J. (1993) Ogallala: Water for a dry land. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Palmer, J. (1994) Meatless meals entice many. Omaha World-Herald, Nebraska p39-40. Peace, A. (2008) Meat in our genes. Anthropology today Vol 24 No.3

Sobal, J. (2005) Men, Meat and Marriage: Models of Masculinity Food & Foodways, 13:135158, Taylor and Francis West, P. (2000) Eat Beef and Be a Mach Patriot. Ugh! News Statesman November 20, 2000

PAGE PAGE 1