Considering the different aspects of carnism and neocarnistic rationales trying to legitimize the exploitation of other animals shows that people care about those animals. This following section initiates some critical thought about how we can rethink human-canine relations as they are placed in the social system of domestication.
What my analysis of carnistic dog feeding practices highlights is that our relationships with domesticated dogs are clearly shaped by human interests and anthropocentric ideas about domesticated animals, constructing farmed animals as legitimate food resource and dogs as loyal and subordinate companions. In relation to the here discussed issue of carnistic dog feeding practices, the process of empathizing with Others is relevant to two groups of domesticated animals; those farmed for food production, and to the dogs we view as companions.
Since both of these groups of domesticated animals are subordinated to humans through the larger setting of human control over other animals, rethinking our relations to domesticated animals will require us to reassess the power relations at play.
To initiate processes critically questioning and opposing anthropocentrism and carnistic ideologies, we need to empathize with those animals who fall victim to its violent logics Joy Such new ways of relating to other animals require acknowledging that they are individuals worthy of respect and the freedom to live their lives without being viewed and treated as things.
In regard to human-canine relations, this process would entail not using the bodies of other animals as dog food because if species-appropriate nutrition is understood as providing all required nutrients to the dog, then that can be done without feeding flesh Milburn The fact that dogs are domesticated makes them dependent on us, inadvertently leading to hierarchical relations and paternalism.
Feeding dogs is therefore inevitable and it is our responsibility to secure that they receive an adequate nutrition.
By offering a range of plant foods, dogs can have the agency to decide what to eat and can let us know what food they prefer over others Donaldson and Kymlicka While overeating should be avoided for health concerns, most dogs understand such routines quickly and eat whenever they are hungry. Carnism is situated in the social structures of anthropocentrism and domestication, and together these belief systems reinforce and normalize practices and ideas that justify the subordination of other animals.
This critical discussion of online narratives on feeding raw meat to dogs highlights how such practices are informed by, and further strengthen, anthropocentric and carnistic beliefs and thus, inevitably promote and justify the killing of animals for human consumption.
Arluke, Arnold, and Clinton Sanders. Regarding Animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. BARF i Fokus. Ess, Charles and the AoIR ethics working committee. Grimm, Hans Ullrich. Gruen, Lori.
New York: Bloomsbury. Hine, Christine. Joy, Melanie. Knight, Andrew. Veterinarian Andrew Knight on the best diets for our pets. Knight, Andrew and Leitsberger, Madeleine. Milburn, Josh. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Noske, Barbara. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Rodham, Karen and Jeff Gavin. Rothgerber, Hank. Selby, David. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Semp, Pia-Gloria. Weeth, Lisa. Barf och etik. Back to Sloth, Volume 3, No. Consuming Others for Others: Carnism and Anthropocentric Conceptions of Dog Feeding Practices by Jana Canavan Lund University Abstract: Situated in a broader anthropocentric and speciesist structure, carnism serves to perpetuate the objectification and exploitation of other animals.
Methodological considerations Utilized empirical material stems from two online forums, the German DogForum and the Swedish forum Barf i Fokus , both selected due to their featured discussion spaces focusing on feeding practices using raw animal flesh. Situating dog food discourses in carnistic ideology and practice Before the rise of the pet food industry, dogs were fed with household leftovers or byproducts of food production, with considerably less importance attached to the matter Weeth , 1.
Biocarnism is thus serving to rationalize the killing of other animals for food and undermines the possibility of feeding dogs with plant-based diets, which is generally denied, unaccepted, and refused in Western contexts in which the dog is seen as companion animal: The dog belongs to the genera of carnivores. DogForum b Marking the feeding of dogs with plant-based diets as a case of animal cruelty is not uncommon in online discussions and could be identified as a recurring line of argument.
The crack in the matrix Most humans live by ethical values of respect and kindness that are rigorously violated when engaging in carnism and other forms of human domination over other animals, including many aspects of pet keeping.
Rethinking our relations to domesticated animals What my analysis of carnistic dog feeding practices highlights is that our relationships with domesticated dogs are clearly shaped by human interests and anthropocentric ideas about domesticated animals, constructing farmed animals as legitimate food resource and dogs as loyal and subordinate companions.
Conclusion Carnism is situated in the social structures of anthropocentrism and domestication, and together these belief systems reinforce and normalize practices and ideas that justify the subordination of other animals. References Arluke, Arnold, and Clinton Sanders. New York: Bloomsbury Hilton, John. Stuttgart: Ulmer. Share Us Online. Speciesism is parallel with racism and sexism, but towards all animals in different species.
It postulates that we discriminate against all nonhuman animals, seeing them as inferior to humans and as having little to no moral value, even though they are all animals just like us; it can be thought of as supremacism over all other animals. It implies that we eat cows, chickens, pigs, and other farm animals because of this inferior view we have of them.
You can learn more about Speciesism here and here. Carnism, on the other hand, postulates that we arbitrarily categorize and discriminate against nonhuman animals based on their relative place in society. In other words, we perceive and treat animals differently based on who and where they are. I largely break these categories into four groups: farmed animals, wild animals, pets or companion animals , and research animals. Each of these categories provoke different reactions in us, which produces distinctions that we make between these nonhuman animals.
Carnism implies that our perception of and treatment towards nonhuman animals is dependent on their relative place in society. It is also strongly linked with the implication that this behavior can be explained as a psychological and sociological phenomenon. Carnism was developed by a psychologist and scholar, Melanie Joy, Ph. You can learn more about Carnism here. The differences between these two concepts is subtle but significant, however.
In other words, Speciesism invokes the same moral wrongs being done to farmed animals and having pets, for example — they are both subjugating animals to be our things to use, stripping them of their individuality and liberty. The second difference is that the extent of anthropocentricism between these two concepts is different. Carnism adds more context to the extent to which anthropocentricism plays into our perception of and treatment towards nonhuman animals.
Like I mentioned in the opening of this article, there are appropriate times for when to refer to either one of these concepts, but many times Speciesism is the only concept that gets the focus. Every animal deserves respect. I even commented on this post by raising this point, to which the PETA account responded to by defining what Speciesism was, thereby ignoring my point.
Eating animals defines, in large part, how we think of and relate to them: how can we objectively consider the rights of animals if the most frequent and intimate contact we have with them is through the consumption of their bodies? The fact that eating animals shapes our attitudes toward them was highlighted in a study that found a decreased concern for animal suffering after the consumption of meat. As long as carnism is a widespread ideology, eating animals will likely remain a widespread practice, and it is therefore unlikely that many animal rights measures will receive widespread public support.
If, for instance, we believe that nonhuman animals—like human animals—have lives that matter to them and feel pleasure and pain, then we have a moral obligation to honor their interests, to grant them the right to be the subjects of their own lives not the property of humans and to live free from harm.
But more often than not, the facts do not sell the ideology: many people can, for instance, learn about the horrors of factory farming and agree that a vegan diet is nutritionally sound, and still continue to eat and otherwise support the exploitation of animals. Human psychology is messy, often illogical, complicated, and diverse.
Our moral choices are determined by our stage of psychological development, personal history, temperament, and current life circumstances, among many other things. What is most consistent in our relationship with animals appears to be our inconsistency. So, while moral argumentation is an important component of working toward animal rights, it is simply one piece of a complex whole.
Abolishing the property status of animals would, of course, abolish the institution of animal agriculture, since animals would have rights that would protect them from being used to serve human ends. However, given the reality of human psychology, such cause and effect is unlikely. It is far more likely that abolishing, or at least weakening, carnism will come before the abolition of the property status of animals.
Legislative change comes about only after there has been significant social change, and social change is bound up with psychological change: imagine, for instance, if citizens were given the opportunity to vote on abolishing the property status of animals, and the voting public was made up of a majority of vegans.
And this same can be applied to our relationship with nonhuman beings. Neocarnism is a category of new forms of carnism. Each neocarnism bolsters one of the Three Ns of Justification by promoting the myths that not eating animals is ab normal, un natural, and un necessary. And they each target one of the three main arguments for veganism: animal welfare, environmental protection, and human health.
Melanie Joy wrote an article explaining her theory of neocarnism in , when she realized that carnism was morphing in order to counter what she believed was a backlash against veganism. You can read the full article here. Read more Accept X. Frequently Asked Questions Is carnism the opposite of vegetarianism or veganism? Technically, carnism is the opposite of veganism.
0コメント