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: 1728

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'd like to pop in here and point out that even if a slaughter process were painless, the life of a conscious creature is still being taken without its consent. taking a conscious being's life is a form of cruelty. If it were not, murder should be permissible if done painlessly. Plants neither feel pain, nor have any expectations, therefore no suffering is caused in their consumption. Domestic animals do feel pain and fear things that threaten to take their live, even if they don't understand death in the same way humans do. They still try to avoid it.
Actually I did call the cops once because of some morons off-roading in their huge pickup trucks alongside the road in a protected area.
Scientists have know for quite awhile how to increase human longevity by thirty percent.  It's easy, just be castrated before puberty and live in a state of constant starvation.  No thank you!

Then I guess it is lucky that eating vegan food can be delicious and easy and we can gain that longevity without deprivation.

 

Pigs, cows and other farmed animals are castrated without painkillers. On pig farms, they use a razor to slice the skin and then yank the testicles out with their fingers.

What an interesting perspective Keely. You mention that we will never live in a vegetarian world so it doesn't matter what happens to farmed animals. Would you agree that since we may never achieve world peace that the suffering of innocent victims of war is inconsequential? We may never stop rape, does that mean it doesn't matter what happens to rape victims?

 

Why do you think that people aren't interested in going vegetarian but are interested in going back to pre-industrial farming methods? Vegetarian foods are available at pretty much every grocery store and I can find options to eat at almost any restaurant. Despite the fact that humane slaughter is an oxymoron, it is much more difficult to find so-called "humane meat". And who has time to visit each of the farmers they buy from to make sure the animals are treated well? And what about how animals are treated when the farmers don't think anyone is looking, like at this small, local, family-owned farm in Ohio?: www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DgYTkM1OHFQg%26playnext%3D1%26list%3DPLA..." target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DgYTkM1OHFQg%26playnext%3D1%26list%3DPLA...

michael polan admits to supporting factory farms everytime he goes out to eat.

Yes humans a have huge obsession with the fountain of youth, I have always linked this to religion, and when I see it among atheists and medically increased life by atheists, I see it as a remnant of religious indoctrination from an early age.

 

As Bill Maher aptly stated once, about living in a feminised society, and 'male instincts': "married men live longer... huh yes and ... an indoor cat also... lives longer. It's a furball with a broken spirit which can only look out on a world it will never enjoy ... but it does technically live longer."

 

I pursue nothing that will make me live longer :P only that which increases enjoyment of life.

I just don't see how eating meat has any connection to how inhumane we allow animals to be treated.  It seems to me that the problem is in the treatment, not the eating of the meat.  

 

The inhumane portion often is connected with the mass production paired with the cheapest way possible to harvest the animals.  So we breed the animals like perfectly efficient machines ... 

 

It does sort of creep me out thinking about how these animals are treated - As they do in fact feel pain.  Anyone who says otherwise is just plain ignorant to animal nervous systems.  

 

But when I see beautifully cut slabs of meat at my local butcher, I just think 'it's already dead so why not buy it'?  

 

As I also stated before, I feel I am giving the animal a purpose.  I truly believe this.  

 

Why not buy it? Because that gives him a reason to do it again! And eating an animal gives it purpose? Even if that were so, I could see how eating an animal that died in some way beyond would fit in that argument, but not killing it to give it purpose. Why shouldn't I kill my neighbor and use his body for fertilizer on my lawn? It would give his life purpose?

well based off your analogy, if your neighbor was already dead , using their body as lawn fertilizer should be acceptable?  

 

I wasn't arguing you should kill it give it purpose, I am arguing that since it is already dead and I personally don't see the abolishment of meat production in the near future, then yes, it gives the death purpose.  

 

Is this wrong of me?  

It's called supply and demand. The needless suffering and slaughter of animals will continue for as long as we demand it with our consumer choices.

 

Paying the hit man makes one just as culpable for the crime of murder. If it is wrong to needlessly hurt and kill animal then it is wrong to pay people to needlessly hurt and kill animals on our behalf.

If the person who the hit man is killing is a danger to oneself or society I may consider it to be a right thing to do.  

 

I agree it is wrong to needlessly hurt animals.  I don't consider a pure death to be 'hurt' though.  

 

If I didn't enjoy meat SO much I may go a different route , but as it stands now, I love eating meat and can't think of life without it :)

RSS

Forum

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Davis Goodman 12 minutes ago. 44 Replies

Sunday Disassembly

Started by Reg The Fronkey Farmer in Society. Last reply by Simon Paynton 16 minutes ago. 4 Replies

The Shinto Flower among the Weeds of Religion

Started by Cato Rigas in Advice. Last reply by Cato Rigas 2 hours ago. 5 Replies

Genesis 3 - Quality Propaganda

Started by Aiken Drums Sister in Politics 6 hours ago. 0 Replies

Blog Posts

Life Condensed

Posted by Cato Rigas on October 19, 2014 at 8:30pm 1 Comment

Cool Vehicle Inspection!

Posted by Ed on October 18, 2014 at 9:03am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service