I realize this is a rather long post, but I would love to get your thoughts on it. I admit my use of the word “religion” in the title for this post may be misleading. I am referring to a belief system in our culture that in many ways parallels the psychology of theists.


According to Melanie Joy, Ph.D, Ed.M, a social psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts, meat eating is an ideology, or a belief system.


She says, “Most of us who have grown up eating meat don’t realize that every time we sit down to our food, we are acting in accordance with an invisible belief system that has shaped our thoughts, preferences, feelings and behaviors. We aren’t aware of how we have been conditioned to eat animals without considering the implications of our choices on ourselves or on others - or to even realize we are making choices at all.”


“Meat production and consumption, the most far-reaching and widely supported form of nonhuman animal exploitation, remains an unnamed ideology.”


“This invisible belief system, carnism, has created the illusion that when we eat meat we are making our choices freely. But carnism is structured to enable humane people to participate in inhumane practices without realizing what they’re doing, to block our awareness so that we unknowingly act against our own interests and the interests of others.”


“We have, however, recognized that the opposing dietary standpoint—vegetarianism—is, indeed, an ideology. For this reason, we do not call vegetarians "plant-eaters" or "non-meat-eaters" because we understand that vegetarianism, though its principles are manifested in the act of abstaining from the consumption of flesh, is actually a philosophy in which the subjugation of other animals is considered unnecessary and unjust.

This inequality of ideological identification demonstrates our collective meat bias. It is, in fact, quite common to label only those beliefs which run counter to the dominant culture. We assume that it is not necessary to assign a term to ourselves when we adhere to the mainstream way of thinking, as though its prevalence makes it an intrinsic part of life rather than a widely held opinion. Meat eating, though culturally dominant, reflects a choice that is not espoused by everybody.

Some people refer to meat-eaters as carnivores; yet, human meat-eaters are actually omnivores, as they consume both flesh and plants. Moreover, the terms carnivore and omnivore suggest a biological predisposition toward flesh, while contemporary, wide-scale meat eating is not a physiological necessity but an ideological choice; the millions of healthy vegetarians who have persisted throughout the centuries are testament to this. Neither carnivore nor omnivore expresses the beliefs beneath the behavior.

For the reasons listed above, I have chosen to employ the terms carnism and carnist to the ideology of meat production/consumption and its proponents. Carnism stems from the Latin carn, meaning flesh or body, and is the root in carnage. Fleshist might have been appropriate, but flesh has fewer connotations suggestive of slaughter and this label may be too disconcerting and removed from the socially accepted carnivore for carnists to be willing to apply to themselves. And the term meatist reinforces the social construction of meat in which "meat" is perceived as synonymous with "food."

By naming the belief system which underlies the acts of meat production and consumption we are better able to acknowledge that slaughtering nonhuman animals for human consumption is not a given but a choice; a choice that is based upon an ideology in which the domination and exploitation of other animals is considered a natural human privilege. To say "I eat meat" or "I am a meat-eater" denotes an action devoid of a philosophical viewpoint, whereas to say "I am a carnist," describes a choice, an identification with a particular belief system. Using the verb, eat, in the labels meat-eater or even flesh-eater places the focus of the consumption of other animals on what one does, rather than what one is.”


In her book, “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows”, Dr. Joy explains the process through which carnists use psychic numbing to cope with the moral disconnect between the common belief that it is wrong to cause needless suffering and the act of causing animals to suffer needlessly so that we can eat them.


Psychic numbing: “we disconnect, mentally and emotionally,from our experience; we ‘numb’ ourselves. [...] Psychic numbing is adaptive, or beneficial, when it helps us to cope with violence. But it becomes maladaptive, or destructive, when it is used to enable violence.”


On both an individual and institutional level, we engage in a number of defense mechanisms that help us to achieve psychic numbing:


 -  Denial: Also called “practical invisibility,” denial is the process by which the horrific realities of “meat” (and egg and dairy) production are literally kept invisible to us. For example, we “grow” billions of chickens, turkeys, pigs, cows, lambs, etc. for food every year; but where are they!? Few of us rarely, if ever, witness these animals grazing the land, rearing their offspring, sunning themselves in the grass or preening in the dirt. But they’re out there: crammed by the tens of thousands into massive, windowless buildings, located in large complexes on the outskirts of town. These animals are trucked to and from slaughter in unmarked vans; their only exposure to the outdoors comes when they await sale or death, on the auction block or at the slaughterhouse. Practically speaking, they remain invisible to us, as does their suffering. Because many of us enjoy eating “meat,” eggs and milk, this is how we like it.


 -  Avoidance: The counterpart to denial, avoidance involves “symbolic invisibility”; it is “knowing without knowing.” The animal agriculture industry – with no small amount of help from the other major social institutions, such as the government and news media – feed us ridiculous, transparent lies about “meat” production, and we eagerly gobble them up. "Humane meat" is an oxymoron:  labels such as “organic,” “free range,” “grass fed,” etc. are rendered meaningless through industry lobbying and self-policing, and besides, no unnecessary death can ever be called “humane.” While the government has ostensibly established myriad rules regarding food safety, animal welfare, and environmental responsibility, again, these rules remain full of loopholes and usually go unenforced. For example, chickens aren’t considered “animals” under either the Animal Welfare Act or the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act.


 -  Justification: We use a series of myths in order to convince ourselves of the “justness” of carnism. These myths typically involve the 3 Ns, as Joy refers to them:


Normal – Carnism has become normalized, such that its tenets are social norms. Social norms are both descriptive (telling us how things are now) and prescriptive (dictating to us how things ought to be). But just like religious belief, just because something is normal, or common, doesn’t make it right.


Natural – If something is “natural,” it’s assumed to be “justifiable”: “The way ‘natural’ translates to ‘justifiable’ is through the process of naturalization. [...] When an ideology is naturalized, its tenets are believed to be in accordance with the laws of nature.” “Natural” = “the way things are meant to be.” But I think many of us can easily point out the“naturalistic fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy


Necessary – Closely tied to the supposed “naturalness” of carnism, “meat’s” perceived “necessity” makes it seem inevitable; not a choice. But clearly “meat” consumption is a choice – in industrialized nations, anyhow – as any vegan or vegetarian can attest.


 - Objectification: Via objectification, we reduce living, sentient beings to nothing more than objects; we objectify them. Clearly, a cow is nothing like a television set – but both are considered pieces of property in our “modern,” “civilized” society. Objectification is even apparent in our language when we refer to animals as “it” instead of as “he” or “she” as if they are inanimate objects.


 - Deindividualization: Through deindividualization, we strip animals of their individual identities, viewing them as pieces of a group and nothing more. One individual in the group is thought of as indistinguishable from all the rest; thus, the singular sentient beings become unfamiliar abstractions. (This is why Americans recoil at the thought of eating dog meat; most of us have either lived with or known at least one dog on a personal level. Dogs are individuals, familiars, whereas cows, pigs, fishes and chickens are not.)


 - Dichotomization: Dichotomization involves grouping animals into two distinct, often diametrically opposed, categories: food/not food, cute/ugly, dirty/clean. These categories are usually arbitrary and based on our own prejudices and stereotypes rather than any semblance of reality. Along with objectification and deindividualization, dichotomization allows us to “distance” ourselves from“food” animals at will.


Here is nice video promo for the book that makes this point pretty well:




 - Rationalization: To rationalize a behavior is to attempt to provide a rational explanation for a behavior that is, at its core, irrational. Animal agriculture is wasteful, unsustainable, harmful to human health and the environment, and – above all else – inherently cruel to the billions of nonhuman animals who are enslaved and killed for nothing more than human “taste” and “convenience” and corporate profits. Yet, our culture is replete with rationalizations for this most irrational of business and ethical models. Even otherwise rational people come up with crazy rationalizations when presented with even the idea of veganism –“don’t plants feel pain too” or “humans have eaten meat for thousands of years.” Yeah, so? Humans have raped and murdered for thousands of years too. Does that make it okay?


 - Dissociation: Described by Joy as “the heart of psychic numbing,” dissociation “is psychologically and emotionally disconnecting from the truth of our experience; it is the feeling of not being fully ‘present’ or conscious.” Often times, dissociation  is triggered by a traumatic experience, for example, experiencing or witnessing a physical assault. Given that “meat” production involves the assault and murder of tens of billions of sentient beings per year – and “meat”- eating is, literally, the consumption of a once-living, once-feeling individual – it makes sense that the same psychological defense mechanism that protects us from reliving our own distressful experience also shields us from the uncomfortable truth that, with every animal-based meal, we are directly participating in another being’s living (and dying) hell.


Anyway, that’s it. Sorry for the long post. If you read the whole thing, I would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

Views: 2097

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

hahaha......funny at best. i can't stop laughing to even reply
Moral enlightenment comes in steps. It does not follow that our inability to know everything should lead us to give up what we have learned. Should we just throw away our collective choice to forbid rape just because we don't know what moral perfection is? Certainly not if you ask me.

Yes, morality requires thought.


Do you agree it is wrong to cause needless suffering? Do you agree animals suffer needlessly when raised and killed for food?


If you are looking for a line in the sand, why not draw the line at not knowingly causing needless suffering?


But if one is going to defend meat eating on the fact that some non-human animals do it then they should be prepared to defend infanticide, rape and cannibalism on the same grounds. But if rape, infanticide and cannibalism fall within the realm of morality (and they do when we have the ability to know better) then so does the act of eating meat. See naturalistic fallacy in the post above.

Well, personally, I still am not sure if I believe in what is traditionally labeled ' morality '.  


I am more of a utilitarian in regards to these actions.  Rape and genocide is counter productive to the flourishing of our species.  


If one country was severely overpopulated there are still easier ways to reduce the rate of production.  Make it mandatory for female tubes to be tied after they have 2 children.  Or if a woman has more than 2 children, the extra children should be forced abortions.  This is not really 'moral' either, but under such extreme situations I believe it becomes 'moral' to institute such laws.  


I think animals are sentient beings , but they are not conscious.  The feelings you think they may feel are less acute than what we feel.  The pain however from what I can deduce is equal if not greater.  

Can you define consciousness? Traditionally that has been difficult to define.


Animal behaviorists overwhelmingly agree that cows, pigs, chickens and other animals we commonly eat are sentient and self aware. Pigs, for example, are thought to be at least as cognitively aware as a three year old human child. Now, I agree a three year old probably doesn't understand the world the way I do, but surely she is self aware and able to suffer. Surely she deserves to be protected from those who would hurt her for their own selfish reasons, right?

I think consciousness is the ability to fully know yourself and to be able to make thought out choices when presented with complex situations.  


When rain occurs and a Gorilla goes to hide under a tree, I am not so sure that can be related to making a decision.  


Now if they go to a village and steal the nearest pitcher and take it back and actually stand in the rain to fill it up to give fresh water to their offspring, then I may consider otherwise.  

Most of these animals would never have lived to begin with if not raised for meat.  So by not doing so, we are depriving millions of cows, pigs, lambs and others of their chance of escaping through the barbed wire fences and living a fruitful life grazing in the grasses of the great plains states.  That is why I eat meat :)


Specifically how would eating less meat be better for the environment?  that is a serious question.  Perhaps better for a person's health if done the right way, but that is not for anyone to decide but the person in question.

read about cutting down forests to make land to grow crops specifically to feed the animals and than to eat those animals.....look at antibiotic resistance due to close confinement of animals, and all the pesticide flow into rivers and than oceans that leads to dead zones....and all the danger from animal excrement......on and on and on

Most of these animals are broiler chickens whose suffering is so extreme they may as well be in a living hell.


Awww they were so cute when they were younger , the images at the end were not so sad as those chickens were ugly !  


The images at the end made me hungry : (


How is that hell though?  The chickens are brought up in that environment ... it's not like you are taking a human being and then torturing them by sticking them into solitary confinement?  Or throwing human beings behind bars for quite mundane 'crimes' as using marijuana ?  


I have mentioned the American Dietetic Association several times already, but the reason is because the ADA is an unbiased source. It is comprised of experts in human nutrition. After reviewing all of the available scientific literature, the ADA concluded that there is no biological needs for humans to consume any animal products. They concluded that vegan diets provide all the nutrients humans need: http://www.eatright.org/about/content.aspx?id=8357


In our evolutionary history it was likely necessary for our ancestors to consume meat from time to time. Go further back and our ancestors probably lacked the cognitive abilities to examine their behaviors and the consequences of their behaviors the way we do now. Meat eating wasn't really a choice back then. But it clearly is now.

Unfortunately, lobbyists can get nutritionists to say pretty much anything. They still encourage dairy consumption and choose to not completely discourage processed grains. History has shown us that nutritionist organisations do not set the agenda, they follow the agenda of others. Even nutrition schools teaching materials are dominated by food lobbies. I'll take evolution over a dietician's opinion any day.


© 2015   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service