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: 2042

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I seriously doubt that hunter gatherers base what they eat on a belief system, they base it on a survival system.  Sure, when food's plentiful you can be picky, but when you're starving, anything is fair game.
See the "Rationalization" point above. We do not live in a hunter gatherer society and those of us in industrialized countries have plenty of access to healthy foods that don't involve the needless slaughter of animals. 
So, if society were to collapse, and you were forced into a hunter gatherer lifestyle, would you still eschew animal protein?
No, if eating meat is necessary for survival then our meat eating behavior would not be a choice and therefore would fall outside the scope of a belief system. I concede sustenance hunting to you. Let's talk about what we actually eat in our culture.

Yes, thank you. I read some of that at the time. The idea is strikingly similar to a Facebook post of mine.


I agree that the people usually get defensive when their belief system is put in question. When the dominant belief system is in question people usually become defensive regardless of the terminology used. Even something as innocuous as "happy holidays" can mean "war on Christmas" to a believer.

Some quick questions: What if someone knows all the facts regarding how animals are treated, but still eats meat? Are they immoral, as opposed to just being ignorant, if they continue to eat meat? If so, should countries all around the world criminalize eating meat? If not, does that mean that we're pro-choice in regards to this issue?

That's pretty much my view of morality too. But it's not really fair to punish those who don't agree with the official version of morality, is it? I'm talking here about illegal actions that are punished by law. Of course, I'm not saying we shouldn't punish those who engage in illegal actions, but it would really be nice to have an objective morality, not this kind of morality in which something is considered immoral just because most people think, or better said, feel that it's immoral. But why is it fair to punish those who don't think the same if we can't really demonstrate that what they're doing is wrong?


Again, I would love an objective morality, but I'm afraid that it may be just a fairy tale.

In the absence of an objective morality would you settle for a democratically determined morality?
Well, isn't that the current situation already? And I don't really see a better alternative, so yes, it is the best morality I know.

Then would you agree that most people think that knowingly causing needless suffering is immoral?


That is the moral principle assumed by Dr. Joy's work. Given this moral principle, she points out there is a disconnect between many people's proposed moral values and their actual behaviors when it comes to eating animals. She concludes that this disconnect is due to a dominant belief system which enables people to cope with this inconsistency - in part by not thinking about it too much. By labeling carnism as a belief system, she thinks people will be encouraged to examine this inconsistency.

I don't agree with this, because I see no evidence for these claims. I don't know if those who consume meat are as ignorant as portrayed by Dr. Joy. Well, at least I'm not, but I don't worry about the welfare of animals so much either. Am I psychopath? I don't think so, because I do feel empathy, quite a lot I'd say, but I also see a lot of hypocrisy among those with a moral superiority complex. Not eating meat should be so low on the list of moral priorities that even talking about it should be considered immoral. Use this time and effort to resolve more important problems of the world, that would be my advice. I don't know, maybe you think that this is one of the most important moral issues, and that's OK. But don't expect everyone to share you convictions on this extremely subjective issue.


As far as the democratic principle of morality goes, eating meat is OK, and trying to label people as ignorant, or as rationalizing what they know is immoral, isn't going to change that. That's because most people don't really care about the welfare of animals as much as others do, or better said, claim to do. And, until anyone can provide an objective reason as to why we should care, the democratic principle dictates that it is not immoral to consume meat. Maybe this will change in the future, but so far there is no majority of people who feel animals shouldn't be eaten.

"Not eating meat should be so low on the list of moral priorities that even talking about it should be considered immoral. Use this time and effort to resolve more important problems of the world, that would be my advice."


This implies that it takes a great deal of time and effort to not eat meat, which it doesn't. Are you saying that people who don't eat meat aren't contributing to other issues? Because, if so, you're sorely mistaken. 


Also, what would you say to the idea that eating meat is not inherently immoral, but eating meat that is factory farmed and pushed through a slaughterhouse, rather than that which comes from actual farms and is not tortured throughout life, is? 


© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service