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.
But the article seems to suggest that the grain and vegetable diet was used to gain fat, not muscle. Also, the article mentions that the gladiators were actually reliant upon an animal product for the strength and durability of their own bones.
I understand the point that many people associate massive meat consumption with masculinity. I fully refute this association or any other gender stereotype mapped onto food consumption. But I just don't think that the link successfully argues against this association.
There is certainly a certain machismo associated with eating meat three times a day, 7 days a week. I've worked in food preparation for group living, where certain people insisted on that slop called sliced meat protein was "essential" to their lunch sandwich, not realising of course that "sliced meat" is extremely pour in animal protein. Such a scandal it was a few years back that in Canada we've had to pass laws requiring that sliced "meats" in order to use the word "meat" had to reach 14% protein.
That kind of meat machismo (3/day) is quite indicative of illiteracy in my book and could be construed as misguided religionism, and isn't it always misguided. :)
You are equating eating meat with that of molesting a helpless and innocent girl.
I request a new analogy :)
I never said using brute force to treat another conscious being inhumanely was acceptable.
I know the animals feel pain - But generally when they die, That is it. There is really not an issue afterwards as the animal is dead. Unlike in killing a human, there is generally familial suffering and other such economic and social factors if done on a mass scale.
I would rather the animal be treated more humanely than how they are treated on the big animal farms that slaughter them while alive, etc.
One could argue that zoos are immoral because it cages a wild animal. A friend of mine once asked to stop playing a movie because it was about wild felines in captivity.
A quick point about the girl scenario. I think we can both agree that touching a girl while she is sleeping is worse than touching her while awake (I mean sexual touching)
Also forced rape of a girl is worse than molestation. There are degrees of psychological impairment in both instances, but the forced rape leaves more scars - both psychologically and physically.
A thought experiment. If you found out your son got caught up bestiality and said he actually enjoyed having sex with certain animals - would you consider this just as grotesque / immoral as if he said he took a few helpless children into the back of his van and raped them?
I think there is an obvious difference - if not so much as a repulsion factor considering we are of the same species of the children and we perhaps find it much worse to violate innocent girls and boys in that way.
Just one more point - if raping little girls was so objectively immoral , then why is it so rampant in our civilizations history?
How about this analogy then?:
Dustin, I assume you will probably agree that crush videos are blatantly and needlessly cruel. One might even describe them as "evil". If you don't know about crush videos, I am talking about violent animal porn. Yes, there is such a thing. For momentary sexual gratification, some people will pay to watch small animals crushed to death by women in high heels. Here is a brief description of a typical scene from a crush video.
"A kitten, secured to the ground, watches and shrieks in pain as a woman thrusts her high-heeled shoe into his body, slams her heel into the kitten's eye socket and mouth loudly fracturing his skull, and stomps repeatedly on the animal's head. The kitten hemorrhages blood, screams blindly in pain, and is ultimately left dead in a moist pile of blood-soaked hair and bone."
Of course, meat eaters and vegans alike can agree that what was just described is blatantly and needlessly cruel and the people who would pay for this type of thing could be called "immoral". But is there really much difference between someone who would pay to have an animal hurt and killed for their own momentary sexual gratification and someone who pays to have animals hurt and killed for their own momentary gustatory pleasure?
Well , certainly it is appalling.
I would not use the term 'evil'. But that seems to be a different intention. Animal Farms are not designed for the purpose of inflicting pain and suffering ... that sort of 'porn' is.
It would be difficult to believe anyone get's off on that footage. It's probably more of a 'shock' factor that some people are just like 'Oh my fucking god that is horrible!!!!!! ' , but they continue to watch just because it's in a way ... fascinating. This connects to a more complex psychological issue about pain and suffering.
I read once that a psychologist did a study where 34 % of the male participants in a college study showed strong signs that they fantasize about raping a woman. There was a strong correlation between receiving a higher arousal to the level of pain inflicted on the woman.
The crushing of a kitten in some ways may make the person watching it feel superior ... they get satisfaction out of it.
I can say though that a lot of japanese porn turns me off because the girls look like they are in pain , just whining incessantly every time the thrust occurs. I much more enjoy the porn where the girls are smiling and at least look like they are having fun , so I have no idea what it would feel like to fantasize about raping a woman.
What if the girl was dead, and the guy was practicing his necrophilia skills?
I mean, she is already dead ... if he went on and on about having sex with a corpse , I wouldn't think he is immoral , just a bit of a freakizoid