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: 2726

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Its not about innocence. By definition all animals are innocent since they lack the capability of being anything but.


I dont get your point. Animals are mistreated by people who treat them as living dolls. Sounds like we are in agreement. If people stopped treating animals as anything more then the resources they are your complaints about human behavior would above would be null and void.

I got the doll playing bit, but you sounded like you were angry at the "stupid little dog", as if the dog were guilty because he ate to live. And "we don't slaughter enough animals" But we do slaughter animals by the bazillions - dogs and cats proliferated by humans. Your problem is with the proliferators not the proliferated.

No not at all i have little to no emotion towards animals.


People that abuse animals(as you described above, and in other more subtle ways)




People that would rather abuse humans then eat animals( Animal Loving PETA vegan crackheads)


makes my blood boil.

I thought you were being ironic the first time. It's the complete opposite of my view. Domesticated animals are living tools for humans, both physically and emotionally, and we have a parasitic relationship. Without humans there would be no need for animal shelters as these animals would die slow and agonizing deaths in nature. At least we provide quick and humane ways for putting down animals we are unable to tend to.

Humans dont NEED domesticated pets. Some people benefit from them but that is a trick of their mind and a waste of social interaction that would be better served with a member of their own species.


The attitude that exists that animals are cute and fluffy and cuddly and think and are smart and are helpless without the all mighty marching PETA wannabe against the big mean meat eaters is a product of misplaced emotions on creatures that would better serve humanity as food then play things.


Cats are needed in cities and on farms to deal with pests. The alternative is chemicals. Dogs are really only needed to aid human weaknesses such as our limited ability to smell and for those with issues with sight. The alternatives to domesticated cats are worse than the suffering endured at human hands for a fraction of the animals.

Usually animal abuse carries the penalty of being denied animals for the rest of your life. I would rather have the opposite system where one had to apply for and be awarded an animal after the ability to look after it could be proven. Kinda like a farm animal license.


@ Stephen, I cannot even begin to understand how it seems you do not grasp the wonderful benefits of owning a beloved pet can have for humans. What does owning a beloved pet have to do with eating or not eating meat, anyway? I don't understand you right now.

Pets should not be held for emotional reasons alone. They need to serve a purpose beyond mere companionship, otherwise they are not properly domesticated and quickly become feral.
Sorry, just finished this and realized it should have been a reply to Flower, / I love our little Punto. But I prefer to not own a pet, Here's the story. My husband and I walk dogs at the animal shelter. Pierre, being partly paralyzed walks the little guys. I was there when Punto was let out of the in-coming isolation box and let in to mingle with the courtyard dogs. He went charging in with his teeth clacking, ready to kill them all. They ripped him up. He was doomed to live in the "douch" (3/4 bath and storage) alone. Pierre chose him to walk with. We were asked if we wouldn't adopt him because he was too old to be guaranteed protection. So, we adopted our now-over-15 y.o. Fox Terrier. His fur has grown back and his wounds have healed but he will always be missing a chunk of lip.
If humans didn't domesticate and proliferate animals for personal gratification, we would have no animal shelters. Domesticated animals are parasites because we domesticated them!  Do you think monkeys are happier in a zoo rather than being in the jungle?

@ Stephen - What you refer to as a "stupid little dog" can mean a lot to a human. Have you ever thought about the wonderful things a little dog can do for people? Have you ever thought about the lessons they can teach us and our children?


Dogs are my passion, my highest form of fuffillment is to interact with them (next to interacting with my human loved ones). I find them fascinating, beautiful creatures, big or small.


Yes, I would probably eat a dog if I had to, but that's beside the point. Dogs do not exist for the soul purpose of being able to eat them. You give me the impression you feel that is the only reason they should exisit. Is this the case? If so, I am curious as to how you come to this conclusion.

No not at all Flower. I have no problem with people having pets persay. But when i see the attitude that comes from the projected emotions on animals that a certain group of western people have adopted it makes me wish at times that domesticated pets never happened.

I get sick of over and over seeing how animals are so important compared to the evil humans. People need to have species first mentalities and they do not.

Given the choice of feeding a child in africa for one night and having a pet id choose the child in africa every damn time. I dont think the same would be said for the PETA heads.



© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service