Cannibalism – Criminology 1

The author’s (Gonzo Theory) latest essay continues to explore the dichotomy between pseudosciences—such as criminology, psychology, sociology, and theology—and the natural sciences like astrophysics, biology, chemistry, and physics. He asserts that pseudosciences are inherently speculative, express inconclusive conjecture, and are philosophically diverse. These various schools of thought are often unable to provide definitive answers regarding the complexity of human behavior. In contrast, natural sciences focus on the organic nature evidentiary substantiation. They are evidence-based, data-driven, and require scientific validation rather than opinion. Using the background of classical criminology and rational choice criminogenic theories, he focuses on a particularly intriguing form of human behavior. This is theorized in the illustrative examples of human “cannibalism”. As allegory in the ways people mistreat other people, discourse is highlighted by the prevalence of imaginative storytelling. He notes the popularity of human fascination with a seemingly taboo subject like cannibalism. The topic is often reflected in media and popular culture, revealing deeper, primal aspects of human nature. The essay touches on the influence of cultural and philosophical perspectives on what is considered normal or abnormal behavior and the symbolic notion of behavioral maladaptive interactivity.

?

?

???? In the pseudosciences, such as criminology, psychology, sociology, and theology, there is a diversity of philosophical perspectives. Adventures in metaphysics promulgate various viewpoints about human behavior. Nothing is absolute, foolproof, well-settled, or otherwise perfectly definitive. Debate, controversy, and argumentative discourse rages on endlessly. Various schools of thought in the spheres of the “social studies arena” (criminology, psychology, etc.) foster a range of speculative theoretical constructs. By contrast, the natural sciences, aka real science, like astrophysics, biology, chemistry, and physics, delve into the organic nature of human existence. In the explorations of human behavior, along with analysis of thinking processes and subsequent actions, puzzlement remains constant. And, in this discourse, “pseudo” is not meant to suggest anything particularly fake or fraudulent. It is simply an indicator that mysterious things continue to remain unresolved scientifically. Over time, answers might be found.

???? Until then, the “social studies arena” remains highly speculative except for the application of forensic science analysis. As one philosopher puts it, pseudoscience is promulgated to find viable evidence to support its assertions. Meanwhile, science challenges those claims and hunts for evidence to disprove them. Additionally, questions are raised about the background of the investigator. What real world experience do they possess to assert a specialized point of view. Further, what credentials demonstrate scientific credibility in terms of investigative processes. Attending the masquerade ball of scientific research philosophical conjecture is one thing, while molecular analysis is quite another. A mask of alleged scientific authenticity requires evidentiary artifacts beyond question. And, such notions can withstand the scrutiny of measurement by in-depth analysis. Likewise, the sociological conjecture surrounding human behave, other than organic composition of the overall physicality, leaves much to opinion laden perspectives.

???? Regarding the perpetration of human cannibalism, a variety of theories intersect in criminogenic assessment. Opinion is not evidence. And, labels are always arguable and not generally suggestive of clear-cut lines of demarcation. Wildly imaginative opinion is not science, along with utterances of revulsion. In the investigative framework of anthropophagy, also known as cannibalism, the consuming of human flesh relates to a long history of human ancestry. Stemming from early explorations, travelers in previous centuries encountered the practice among various tribal groups. In modern times, cannibalism is considered quite rare. Yet, allegorically, those with wealth and power often exploit their authority to impose unfair policies and decisions, prioritizing their interests over the well-being of those not in their social status.

???? Wildly imaginative speculations, and sometimes quite entertaining, are the promulgations of magical thinking cloaked in the disguise of “scientific research”. Behavioral analysis is nowhere near being a scientific endeavor at this point in modern times. This is in reference to the wannabe scientists salaciously self-flagellating their myriad viewpoints of the “social studies arena”. Attending a faculty confab within a setting of “criminal justice” professors, for example, at one major university, is a case in point. How many actually believe in the reality of what they are advocating? Do they seriously accept the dogma of propositional quiddity by which a school of thought is promoted? More recklessly, is it that important to assume one is “more right” than an opposing perspective? After all, at the end of the day, what you say is that for which you pay. An observation occurs. Discussing course curriculum and the philosophy for which advocacy defends a matrix, how many easily acquiesce to the loudest voice in the room? Roughly about 75% quickly collude with little or no investigative analysis or follow-up.

???? Following up on acquiescence, the contrivance of so-called peer review intends to perpetuate the status quo. ?Contrived conformity finds much kindship. Unless, of course, your operational theater is in the real sciences. Nonetheless, of nearly 100 assembled on the case in point, in a recent faculty conference, most willingly went along with the loudest voice in the room. To get along, not cause a problem, and stay in good favor, many easily give in to the path of least resistance. Generally, there is no provocation for exceptional creativity. Nor is there any sense of functioning outside the box. And, any admonition toward being transparent is nothing but simplistic feel-good superficiality. Drinking the “Kool-Aid” is not a problem. On the issue of flesh-eating humans or trafficking in human body parts, what is the reality? Gut-wrenching revulsion or another manifestation of people dealing with their psycho-dynamic complexity?

???? What is normal, and when is it abnormal? Self-centered value judgments sound loud and clear and each reacts to his or her own realm of dysfunction. And yet, no matter what the pretentious utterance of repulsion, there is the self-induced lure toward grisly acts of criminality. Fear or fascination, the salacious seduction, toys with inner demonic aspects. Of those multiple personalities within, or fragments with many faces, an amative appeal invites a closer look. The hypocrisy on the surface is seen in the so-called news report of some macabre incident. Warnings are suggested, the “mature audiences” signal is flashed, however most want to see the bloodshed any way. No matter the horror, the “infotainment” venues show the tragedy without serious reservation. On cue, and scripted, the reporters act out their prescribed roles.

???? History recounts loud and clear humans eating each other, from acts of survival to magical purposes, the intent of which is the broad spectrum of selfish purposes. Reflecting upon this, a news source reporting on Hollywood storytelling spins the tale of renewed popularity in cannibalism. Discussing the surge of projects in the “person” eating genre, the author of the article invites input from an academician from the realm of biology and zoology. While the writer starts off with an erroneous premise, humans as biologically driven creatures, the scientist offers correction on that point. Where is the science to substantiate “being hardwired” for this or that? Which in turn, invites biological determinism. For that, one would be hard pressed to provide expert testimony in court on the scientific validity. At any rate, the science-oriented advisor points to a willingness to accept cultural influences in humanistic decision-making. As far as humans are concerned, there are many reasons humans consume other humans.

???? Of those speculations, the psychic depth in relation to cause-effect, intent, and purpose remains fascinating and not completely well-defined. Not to forget of course, not well-understand. In the social studies arena, many opinions argue a lack of scientific authenticity. At the same time, many species on the planet consume their own kind, from apes to insects, as well as fish and fowl. And, horror movies seem to repeatedly recreate the theme quite frequently. From Greek and Roman times, the idea of cannibalism as taboo enters the historical picture. Down through the centuries, in western cultures, such a notion becomes unthinkable. For some researchers, the idea of cannibalism stems from social interaction constructs. Those in power, as well as those with the ability to strongly influence public policy and ensure legal constraints, implement controlling mechanisms. By the “filter of fiction”, people can remain a safe distance from themselves. Where Hannibal Lecter was about delectable storytelling, the harsh reality is as enticing.

???? From the late 1800’s, regarding studies in the pathologies of psycho-sexual behaviors, several investigators correlate sexuality with acts of cannibalism. Additionally, as pointed out by the aforementioned researcher earlier, human body parts were considered part of “medicinal cannibalism”. In other words, parts of the human anatomy were utilized in pharmacology for curative purposes. With the advent of the 20th century, such notions faded into history. Lately, there appears to be cinematic success in the eating-themed genre. For instance, a number of recent movies, television series, and books, both novel and non-fiction, are gaining much social attention. Observational analysis of such indulgences, with the filtration of fiction rather than reality, suggests amative flirtation and expression of the darker depths of human beings.

???? An interesting article in a publication from a prominent university’s literary press, considers the provocation of horror on the topic cannibalism. For most people, the subject matter is psychically challenging. Akin to the mysteries associated with quantum physics, and subsequent studies of consciousness, predilection and prediction defy the imagination. Once something is oppressed to the elemental range of measurement, reality undergoes change. Predictability becomes more unpredictable. Reality takes on a divergent perspective that transgresses into the spheres of the surreal. Accordingly, the aforementioned author delves into the intricate realm of “postmodern culture” by way of studies in violence. Vis-à-vis the “body politic” appertaining to the locale of customs and consensus, cannibalism exudes a potently ardent historical reminder. People at once are confronted by their existence, questioning the essentiality of who they are. Essentially proposed by the higher ed analysis, is the question that disturbs people.

???? Well, consternation doesn’t exactly disturb everyone, but suffice it to say most people at least pretend they are bothered by such a notion. But, are they really? Humans are very good at deception. For police officers however, nothing should come as a surprise regarding human behavior. Seasoned police officers ought to know better. Take for instance as a side note, the typical collegiate academic “criminal justice” classroom course. Hope springs eternal that an actual real-world practitioner (law enforcement personnel) is teaching such courses. Most often in academia, that is not the case. At any rate, the example continues. While presenting an audiovisual case study on a particular murder, some will utter the “ew effect”. This is somewhat similar to the “CSI effect”, but a slight variation on the theme of naivete and gullibility. Or inner psychic projection. Not to forget, of course, magical thinking with a very shallow perspective. This is a framework of fraud and hoax that the so-called “reality TV” shows hope to capitalize upon.

???? Shocking, horrible, and disgusting comes the echo of disingenuous play-acting revulsion. However, does the audience turn away? Frequently, the answer is no. The interstate nearly shuts down because drivers want to see a dead body. The difficulty in the assessment of behavioral antics is complicated by not really knowing what another is thinking or planning to do next. As to the “ew effect”, that might be a way of excusing a closer affinity with the horror story. Regardless, if one intends on being affiliated in a career field in the multi-systems of criminology, etc., get over it. People are fully capable of committing all manner of atrocity. As to the earlier mentioned research at a highly regarded U.S. university, “primal social violence” (e.g., cannibalism) is a cultural practice in the 21st century. Some parts of the world maintain different perspectives.

???? Seemingly, people in general want to be shocked. The wild, the bizarre, and the mystical challenges the fantasies of many. The popularity of “reality TV” shows, sci-fi and horror genres or murder mysteries speaks volumes of the primal desires lurking in dark psychic recesses. Yet, the mundane day-to-day existence, the work routine, and the boredom in an overly consumptive consumer society invite salacious fascinations. In the U.S., most function in safe, secure, mediocre, and uncreative lifestyles. For the majority, the usual tendency is to relish in the “glory days” of high school or lower realms of primal existence. Many observational studies suggest that a large number of people seldom ascend progressively beyond their “public school” perceptions. Growing up, transforming into mature individualized adults, profoundly committed to personal transformation is too cumbersome. Experiencing some form of excitement quenches amative desires. Naturally, arguments to the contrary are always in flux. Nothing is foolproof.

???? One writer, reporting in a movie industry magazine, discusses the fascination with Hollywood’s “person-eating projects”. From romantic allure to culinary expose’, as well as serving the “fresh flesh” marketplace, movie scripts capitalize upon the ongoing flirtation with the cannibal concept. In one aspect, bringing criminals back from the dead, the popularity of human-eating multi-murderers provokes renewed salaciousness among viewership. Similarly, a plane crash lands in a remote region of the world, and the survivors plan how to survive without provisions. And the show series gets rave reviews. Following up on such popularity, the reporter sought the viewpoint of a scientist as opposed to a psychic philosopher. From a biologist’s perspective, studying human evolution, cannibalism is viewed as widespread throughout nature. For Western culture, anti-cannibalism is a matter of philosophical perspective. Other cultures may disagree and, in fact, might recoil at such a taboo where burying the dead is preferred.

???? Where the popularity of blood, guts, and entrail feeding is salacious entertainment, some investigators see that as a “fictional filter”. A movie is one thing, but reality is still another. That is to say, storytelling is a protected way of indulging in primordial lechery. Without actually being involved in a treating way, one can explore inner fantasies. Additionally, viewers can enjoy, at a safe distance, the distinction between the surreal and the real. As to the everyday life of fetishes, many have problems reconciling the notion as a component of public discourse. However, privately, in the seemingly secure privacy of home life, who knows? We have no idea what’s hiding behind a computer screen, in the closed and locked doors of one’s domicile. People express a diversity of personalities to excuse behaviors at certain points in time.

???? When behavior becomes very primal, as in criminal perpetration, the devolution has gone to the cannibalistic realm. Imagined or real, dreamed or revealed, the purpose is for the satiation of dominance, power, control, manipulation, and the host of inner desires. Perpetration is freely willed for purposeful reasons. Regardless, as some might allude, legal frameworks are contrived for mitigating the application of varied excuses. As such, a bifurcated system of justice is formatted on two sides, arguing philosophical perspectives on human behavior. Of which, the necessity of scientific substantiation tempers the balance. Regardless, one fascinating viewpoint comes forth from an article in a prominent “psychic” (psychology) journal. A researcher teasingly proposes the seduction of cannibalistic thinking emerges in various ways. On the subtle side of imagined things, interpersonal communication exudes a “lexicon” of possibilities. Again, it should be underscored that no one has any idea what someone is really thinking.

???? Accordingly, as to the aforementioned, whether one exposes an angry disposition, or an aggressive posture, there appear to be “flesh consuming” undertones. The researcher claims that it is so common in human interaction that the essence of it goes unnoticed. Phrases that include “chewing someone up” and “spitting them out”, or “bite their” body parts off, are served up as metaphorical examples. Of this theoretical construct, the investigator asserts a deeper meaning in the symbolic language. A flashback occurs with some resemblance as to this perspective. Such metaphorical language was often heard just before the 2008 collapse of the U.S. economy. In the “dog eat dog” realm of Wall Street, the fiercely competitive nature is said to mimic, in some ways, primeval cannibalism of human ancestry. And, the banking industry is very similar. One CEO bragged he wanted to “rip the heart” out of the competition, and “eat it’.

???? Over the course of several articles on the subject, the writer previously mentioned cites numerous invectives people use with reference to cannibalism. To “devour” an opponent or “cut them to pieces” are a few examples of the language emerging in daily discourse. From these utterances, the speculation suggests a “cannibalistic predisposition” within human beings. Symbolic behaviors, it is said, mask the deeper intent. From this point of view, the trek treads precariously along the edgy spheres of organic matter. It is as though the writer is flirting with saying such tendencies might be in human DNA. And, here we go again. For modern American culture, this is the default option when something cannot be definitively explained. In other words, no one knows with degree of sufficiency, so let’s concoct an answer. But what is important to note are words like “might”, “could”, and “maybe”. Nothing is foolproof.

???? In the furtherance of notions regarding fascination with the marketing of human body parts, a news source published an article regarding human tissue consumption. From a U.K. publication to an international newspaper with a global audience, a reporter in the “science” section poses a tongue-in-cheek curiosity. Over ten years ago, the writer looked into the somewhat nonsensical question of what human meat tastes like. As a follow-up to an incident involving a German restaurant, wherein a hoax emerged, wonderment ensured regarding such consumption. Allegedly, the dining facility perpetrated fraud in advertising gourmet meals of human flesh. Although a publicity stunt, the investigator pondered the notion of such culinary sampling. In the process of assessing the incident, another company is referenced regarding their ads promoting “human flesh” alternatives. As to this latter occurrence, promoters supposedly claimed that their tofu ingredients, aka “hufu”, had the texture of beef. Misinformation has historical references.

???? The aforementioned advertising of “hufu” maintained that, in contrast to popular belief, people do not taste like pork or chicken. Once again, the reporting efforts determined that the product advertising was yet another fraud. Unfortunately, seems like such incidents do not often incur sure and swift law enforcement action. Nonetheless, the investigative reporter cited surveys that most people believe human meat tastes like pork. And, to this point, according to interviews with people who eat human placenta following childbirth, the idea of “pork-like” seems consistent. Seemingly, there is a “baloney” kind of texture and flavor. Similarly, bacon is another hint that comes to mind as suggested by others. In the search for a real-life cannibal, the investigator sought out an interview with an incarcerated murderer who consumed one of his victims. Actually, not the whole person, but approximately 20 kilograms of the victim’s flesh. Once more, the pork reference enters the picture. Such is an interesting “cannibal lecture”.

???? Referencing a similar experience by another reporter, human flesh was obtained through a medical source in Europe. The portion was prepared and cooked as though a typical animal store-bought meat product. Upon consuming the preparation, a comparison was made with Veal. According to the earlier citation, this is the pork-beef dichotomy. The slant toward pork tends to be the predominant viewpoint. Overall, whether actual infliction or metaphorical dramatization, cannibalism appears to be a common theme in human interactivity. Depictions in social media, corporate and political hyperbole, and the movie-making industry remain thematically ever-present. In 1973, a classic sci-fi movie depicted a dystopic world in which people were a food source. And the extent of real-world criminality continues to be deceptively murky.