Features Carnism

1 features

1.1 edible or inedible
1.2 meat paradox
1.3 justification
1.4 saved slaughter narratives

features
edible or inedible

a central aspect of carnism animals categorized edible, inedible, pets, vermin, predators, or entertainment animals, according people s schemata – mental classifications determine, , determined by, our beliefs , desires. there cultural variability regarding animals count food. dogs eaten in china, , south korea, elsewhere not viewed food, either because loved or, in middle east , parts of india, regarded unclean. cows eaten in west, revered in of india. pigs rejected muslims , jews regarded other groups edible. joy , other psychologists argue these taxonomies determine how animals within them treated, influence subjective perceptions of sentience , intelligence, , reduce or increase empathy , moral concern them.

meat paradox

jeff mannes writes carnism rooted in paradox between people s values , actions: oppose harming animals, , yet eat them. argues conflict leads cognitive dissonance, people attempt attenuate through psychic numbing. apparent conflict between caring animals , embracing diets require them harmed has been termed meat paradox .

there experimental evidence supporting idea meat paradox induces cognitive dissonance in westerners. westerners more willing eat animals regard having lesser mental capacities , moral standing, , conversely, attribute lesser mental faculties , moral standing animals eaten. furthermore, relationship causative: categorization of animals food or not affects people s perception of mental characteristics, , act of eating meat causes people attribute diminished mental capacity animals. example, in 1 study people rated unfamiliar exotic animal less intelligent if told native people hunted it, , in regarded cows less intelligent after eating beef jerky.

avoiding consideration of provenance of animal products strategy. joy argues why meat served animal s head or other intact body parts.

justification

joy introduced idea of 3 ns of justification , writing meat-eaters regard meat consumption normal, natural, , necessary . argues 3 ns have been invoked justify other ideologies, including slavery , denying women right vote, , recognized problematic after ideology support has been dismantled.

the argument holds people conditioned believe humans evolved eat meat, expected of them, , need survive or strong. these beliefs said reinforced various institutions, including religion, family , media. although scientists have shown humans more enough protein in diets without eating meat, belief meat required persists.

building on joy s work, psychologists conducted series of studies in united states , australia, published in 2015, found great majority of meat-eaters stated justifications consuming meat based on 4 ns  – natural, normal, necessary, , nice . arguments humans omnivores (natural), people eat meat (normal), vegetarian diets lacking in nutrients (necessary), , meat tastes (nice).

meat-eaters endorsed these arguments more reported less guilt dietary habits. tended objectify animals, have less moral concern them , attribute less consciousness them. more supportive of social inequality , hierarchical ideologies, , less proud of consumer choices.

saved slaughter narratives

the national thanksgiving turkey presentation, in american president pardons turkey, has been cited illustration of carnism.

an illustration of dissonance reduction prominence given saved slaughter stories, in media focus on 1 animal evaded slaughter, while ignoring millions did not. joy wrote dichotomy characteristic of carnism.

animals @ center of these narratives include wilbur in charlotte s web (1952); eponymous , fictional star of babe (1995); christopher hogwood in sy montgomery s good, pig (2006); tamworth two; , cincinnati freedom. american national thanksgiving turkey presentation cited example. 2012 study found media reporting on celebrated poultry industry while marginalizing link between living animals , meat.

how people defend eating meat , lancaster university, 15 may 2015.

^ rothgerber, hank (august 2014). efforts overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters . appetite. 79: 32–41. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003. 
^ hodson, gordon (3 march 2014). meat paradox: loving exploiting animals , psychology today.
^ bastian, brock; et al. (2011). don t mind meat? denial of mind animals used human consumption (pdf). personality , social psychology bulletin. 38 (2): 247–256. doi:10.1177/0146167211424291. 
^ plous, scott (2002). there such thing discrimination towards animals? . in plous, scott. understanding prejudice , discrimination (pdf). mcgraw hill higher education. pp. 509–528. isbn 0-07-255443-6. retrieved 9 august 2015. 
^ joy 2011, p. 16.
^ cite error: named reference joy2011p96 invoked never defined (see page).
^ cite error: named reference singal4june2015 invoked never defined (see page).
^ joy 2011, p. 97.
^ greger, michael (6 june 2014). vegetarians enough protein? . 
^ goodyer, paula (1 june 2015). meat eaters justify diet using 4 ns : natural, necessary, normal, nice . sydney morning herald. 
^ packwood-freeman, carrie; perez, oana leventi (2012). pardon turkey , eat him , in joshua frye, michael s. bruner (eds.), rhetoric of food: discourse, materiality, , power, routledge, p. 103ff.
^ mizelle, brett (2015). unthinkable visibility: pigs, pork , spectacle of killing , 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.
^ joy 2011, pp. 135,150