Disgust, Antebellum Vegetarianism, and the Human Animal in Thoreau’s “Higher Laws”

Abstract

Abstract:“Higher Laws” has typically been interpreted as indicating Henry David Thoreau’s ambivalence about his status as a human animal. This paper extends these readings by comparing Thoreau’s argument for vegetarianism to those of prominent antebellum reformers, Sylvester Graham and William Alcott. It argues that while Grahamites framed animal flesh-eating as an unnatural and morally repulsive practice, Thoreau focused his critique on the aberrant way humans consume meat. Significantly, Thoreau drew a distinction between a natural, wild mode of carnivorousness conducive to fulfilling one’s basic needs, and an unnatural, domesticated mode of consumption characterized by excess, pleasure, and thrill. Situated within the context of the psychology and philosophy of emotions, this paper charts the recruitment of disgust by prominent antebellum reformers to persuade readers to adopt a humane diet. It also proposes a novel account of the political efficacy of the emotion for promoting progressive social values.