Product Code Database
Carnism is a concept used in discussions of humanity's relation to other animals, defined as a prevailing ideology in which people support the use and consumption of , especially meat. Carnism is presented as a dominant belief system supported by a variety of defense mechanisms and mostly unchallenged assumptions.Dhont, Kristof; Hodson, Gordon (2014). "Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation and meat consumption?", Personality and Individual Differences, 64, July (pp. 12–17), p. 4. Kool, V. K.; Agrawal, Rita (2009). "The Psychology of Nonkilling", in Joám Evans Pim (ed.), Toward a Nonkilling Paradigm, Center for Global Nonkilling, pp. 353–356. The term carnism was coined by social psychologist and author Melanie Joy in 2001 and popularized by her book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows (2009).Melanie Joy (2011) 2009. Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism. Conari Press, p. 9. .Rose, Marla (8 November 2010). "An Interview with Dr. Melanie Joy", Encyclopædia Britannica Advocacy for Animals.Ben Schott (11 January 2010). "Carnism", Schott's Vocab, The New York Times.
Central to the ideology is the acceptance of meat-eating as "natural", "normal", "necessary", and (sometimes) "nice", known as the "Four Ns". An important feature of carnism is the classification of only particular species of animal as food, and the acceptance of practices toward those animals that would be rejected as unacceptable cruelty if applied to other species. This classification is culturally relative, so that, for example, dogs are eaten by some people in Korea but may be pets in the West, while cows are eaten in the West but protected in much of India.
In the 1970s, traditional views on the moral standing of animals were challenged by animal rights advocates, including psychologist Richard Ryder, who in 1971 introduced the notion of speciesism. This is defined as the assignment of value and rights to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership.Ryder, Richard D. (1971). "Experiments on Animals", in Stanley Godlovitch, Roslind Godlovitch, John Harris (eds.), Animals, Men and Morals, Grove Press.Ryder, Richard D. (2009). "Speciesism", in Marc Bekoff (ed.), Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, GreenwoodCora Diamond (2004). "Eating Meat and Eating People", in Cass Sunstein, Martha Nussbaum (eds.), Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, Oxford University Press, p. 93. In 2001, psychologist and animal rights advocate Melanie Joy coined the term carnism for a form of speciesism that she argues underpins using animals for food, and particularly killing them for meat.Melanie Joy (2001). "From Carnivore to Carnist: Liberating the Language of Meat", Satya, 18(2), September, pp. 126–127; Joy, Melanie (2003). Psychic Numbing and Meat Consumption: The Psychology of Carnism, doctoral dissertation, Saybrook Graduate School, San Francisco. Joy compares carnism to patriarchy, arguing that both are dominant normative ideologies that go unrecognized because of their ubiquity: (2025). 9789400709294, Springer Netherlands. ISBN 9789400709294
Sandra Mahlke argues that carnism is the "central crux of speciesism" because the eating of meat motivates ideological justification for other forms of animal exploitation. Abolitionist Gary Francione argues against this that carnism is not a hidden ideology, but a conscious choice; in his view some animals are viewed as food and others family because humans regard non-humans as property, and they may value that property as they please.
There is experimental evidence supporting the idea that the meat paradox induces cognitive dissonance in Westerners.Hodson, Gordon (3 March 2014). "The Meat Paradox: Loving but Exploiting Animals", Psychology Today. Westerners are more willing to eat animals which they regard as having lesser mental capacities and moral standing, and conversely, to attribute lesser mental faculties and moral standing to animals which are eaten. Furthermore, the relationship is causative: the categorization of animals as food or not affects people's perception of their mental characteristics, and the act of eating meat itself causes people to attribute diminished mental capacity to animals. For example, in one study people rated an unfamiliar exotic animal as less intelligent if they were told native people hunted it, and in another they regarded cows as less intelligent after eating beef jerky.
Avoiding consideration of the provenance of is another strategy. (2025). 9780072554434, McGraw Hill Higher Education. ISBN 9780072554434 Joy argues that this is why meat is rarely served with the animal's head or other intact body parts.Joy 2011, p. 16.
The argument holds that people are conditioned to believe that humans evolved to eat meat, that it is expected of them, and that they need it to survive or be strong. These beliefs are said to be reinforced by various institutions, including religion, family and the media. Although scientists have shown that humans can get enough protein in their diets without eating meat, the belief that meat is required persists. Moreover, a 2022 study published in PNAS calls into question the impact of meat consumption on shaping the evolution of the human species.
Building on Joy's work, psychologists conducted a series of studies in the United States and Australia, published in 2015, that found the great majority of meat-eaters' stated justifications for consuming meat were based on the "Four Ns" – "natural, normal, necessary, and nice". The arguments were that humans are ( natural), that most people eat meat ( normal), that vegetarian diets are lacking in nutrients ( necessary), and that meat tastes good ( nice). "How people defend eating meat", Lancaster University, 15 May 2015.
Meat-eaters who endorsed these arguments more strongly reported less guilt about their dietary habits. They tended to objectify animals, have less moral concern for them and attribute less consciousness to them. They were also more supportive of social inequality and hierarchical ideologies, and less proud of their .
Helena Pedersen, in her review of Joy's original book, suggested Joy's theory was too broad and did not account for variation in people's beliefs and attitudes; for example, Pedersen argues that Joy's argument that people dissociate animal products from their animal origins cannot account for some hunters who make explicit connection between the two as a justification for consumption or for former vegetarians who have changed their attitudes towards the consumption of animal products. Pedersen also says that Joy seems to present the consumption of animal-products as arising from ignorance of how they are produced, however Pedersen disagrees that people would simply change their consumption if they were more informed.Pedersen, Helena. "Critical Carnist Studies." Society & Animals 20, no. 1 (2012): 111–112.
Animals at the center of these narratives include Wilbur in Charlotte's Web (1952); the eponymous and fictional star of Babe (1995); Christopher Hogwood in Sy Montgomery's The Good, Good Pig (2006);Mizelle, Brett (2015). "Unthinkable Visibility: Pigs, Pork and the Spectacle of Killing and Meat", in Marguerite S. Shaffer, Phoebe S. K. Young (eds.), Rendering Nature: Animals, Bodies, Places, Politics, University of Pennsylvania Press, p. 264; Mizelle, Brett (2012). Pig, Reaktion Books, pp. 105–106. the Tamworth Two; Emily the Cow and Cincinnati Freedom. The American National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation is cited as another example. A 2012 study found that most media reporting on it celebrated the Poultry farming while marginalizing the link between living animals and meat.Packwood-Freeman, Carrie; Perez, Oana Leventi (2012). "Pardon Your Turkey and Eat Him Too", in Joshua Frye, Michael S. Bruner (eds.), The Rhetoric of Food: Discourse, Materiality, and Power, Routledge, pp. 103ff.
|
|
