meat, commits the first acts of exsanguination and flesh consumption in the novel, deploying carnivorism to eat his fear of the impending threat of cannibalism.
Thus it is not the barbarity of cannibalism that sets Harker apart from the Count--they both eat dead bodies--but rather the fact that his form of corpse consumption, carnivorism, unlike the Count's tabooed practice, is sanctioned by modern flesh-eating society.
In doing so, the Count draws attention to the tabooed border separating carnivorism from cannibalism, dredging up the fear that the two are un/restrained forms of the same flesh-eating impulse, and the even deeper fear of what a collapse of the two would mean for an anthropocentric formulation of species identity: an atavistic reminder of a shared flesh-eating past.
(36) Just as the fictional cloak of the supernatural palliates a representation of the red and white, flesh and blood cannibalistic aspects of vampirism euphemistic convention, for example, disguising consumed flesh as meat, sanctions an non-ideological, chromatic juxtaposition of paprika with animal blood and carnivorism.
In rejecting the food 'of man', the monster rejects the system of carnivorism, and this refusal to eat animal flesh contributes to his alienation.
Carnivorism alienates the nonhuman animal as property rendered into a commodity in the form of food.
Victor's desire to assert such superiority exemplifies the ideological logic of both speciesism and carnivorism. We have seen that carnivorism--and what Derrida calls 'carno-phallogocentrism'--constructs subjectivity.