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: 2838

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.


@ Stephen - That does not make sense to me. That is like saying to your little seven year old daughter "Oh I'm sorry honey. I know you found that abandoned kitten and want to keep it, but it will be better if we kill it and make kitty jerky out of it and ship it to Africa". Come on! Work with me here.  

No i would and have said that 1000 dollars for that purebred puppy that serves no better purpose then a teddy bear would be better spent on our species and donated money to the Red Cross in my sons name instead.


But kitty jerky isnt such a bad idea

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.


@ Arcus -  Are you saying, in your opinion, it is wrong to own dogs because they bring great amonts of joy and encourage healthy physical activities into one's life? That does not compute for me. I don't think I understand what you are saying.

Yes. If that is the major aim of dog ownership then a dog is not required. One can have healthy active joyous lives without having a dog. However, if one is unable to acheive this without a dog, a psychiatrist should prescribe one and breeders should choose the optimal dog to suit your needs.

Incarcerating clearly free willed animals in houses because they are cute and friendly is not a good reason to get a pet. And they do not make for good children's toys or weapons either.

Missed the i cant believe your an atheist comment earlier... Its good for a laugh though because i cant believe someone believes that any ideal i have besides not believing in a deity has anything to do with me being an atheist or not.


While I am not a member of PETA, your use of the term "PETA heads" seems to refer to anyone who cares about animal rights, and because of that, I feel the need to comment on this:

"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."

Why does everyone have these "us vs them" attitudes when it comes to ANYTHING they can disagree on? First off, I have spent just as much time working on raising money and sending care packages of medical supplies to Africa as I have campaigning for animal rights, as have many of my friends (and, in fact, many of the vegetarians I know are the very same people petitioning for basic human rights, organizing "Food Not Bombs" to feed the homeless, and things of that nature) so you can take the superiority stick out of your ass.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with having compassion for other beings outside of your species. That doesn't make a person weak, or less deserving of respect. And it certainly doesn't call for broad, generalized, sweeping statements that imply that people who care about animals are completely incapable of caring about people.

If you dont fit what im saying why take offense? There are the "i care more about animals then people group" of which i am speaking.You dont have to go far to find examples in this thread and others. I mentioned PETA specifically because of their connection with terrorist groups (Earth Liberation front for one) that specifically harm humans because of their lub of the animals.


Good for you to have diverse causes to champion.


And thank you ill keep the stick anywhere i please unless your jealous and think its your turn?


Nothing wrong with compassion. I believe that some people spend more of their compassion on animals then they do on people. If you dont then good for you.



Playing a little Devil's Advocate here: What's so wrong with loving animals more than loving people? Most animals we are met with lack the judgmental nature of humans. They don't take one another's rights away, they don't foreclose each others' houses, or beat the shit out of their mates. Often, people are met with more kindness from animals than they are from other people. What's wrong, then, with caring for a creature that is actually kind to you, over a collective species that spends most of its time destroying others of its own kind?

Your right animals lack a judgmental nature... because they are incapable of that type of reasoning. Its not some wonder of how great they are. Its a sure sign of how unsuited they are as the social replacement of another human being as a companion.


So since you say animals are dripping with kindness than they can also choose to be unkind?


Maybe if people spent less time with their living teddy bears they could spend more time with humans working out those differences dontcha think?


Since we have so many dividers amongst our own kind Isnt it smarter to not encourage more social withdrawal from each other by espousing the idea that animals are better then your own kind?


What your describing is emotional and reasoning projection that people do with animals to give them human qualities they simply dont have. Your actually comforting yourself with imagined emotions of the creature not them comforting you.

Thanks, Jess. You said it for me.

To me, an atheist is sort of the opposite of a religious fundamentalist. Fundamentalists are of an us-and-them mentality and can be pretty mean-spirited. I don't see an atheist lacking compassion for any of "god's" creatures. But it must be possible. There you are as proof, Stephen.

This is an amazing post, and actually touches on a lot of the reasons that I am a vegetarian, and my partner is a pescetarian. I get called out, so often, because apparently eating meat is "natural" and "necessary" and what we are "designed" to do, and it's such a mind-bogglingly frustrating discussion to get locked into, because people don't seem to realize that none of those are real reasons to continue doing it in this day and age. I wish people would just admit that the system works for them, they like it, and that's why they do it, rather than trying to convince me that it's somehow necessary and that they HAVE to.


© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service