Carnism: Meat, Deconstructed
Update, 1/27/10: Dr. Joy, the author of Carnism, has joined the conversation in the comments section. If you would, please take a moment to see what she has to say – and give her a warm welcome!
Have you ever wondered why, out of tens of thousands of animal species, you probably feel disgusted at the idea of eating all but a handful of them? What is most striking about our selection of edible and inedible animals is not the presence of disgust, but the absence of it.
Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism is Melanie Joy’s answer to the question posed above: how do we as a society “decide” which animals make for fine dining as opposed to a challenge to be conquered on Fear Factor? Why do we view some animals “consumable,” while others are “cuddly”? And how do we justify enslaving and slaughtering animals at all, when this suffering is unnecessary to human survival in industrialized nations?
Joy – a social psychologist and animal advocate – lays out the concept of “carnism” to explain how and why we classify a small subset of nonhuman animals as “food,” even though all animals (humans included) are essentially made of the same stuff (i.e., flesh or “meat”). The ideology of carnism at once enforces and reinforces our consumption of meat (our “meat culture,” if you will). Because “carnism” is ludicrous, we need to employ a number of defense mechanisms in order to maintain the status quo. These include denial, avoidance, routinization, justification, objectification, deindividualization, dichotimization, rationalization, and dissociation, and all occur at both the individual and institutional levels.
As a former psych major, I got no small kick out of this book. So much so that I took notes – and made an outline, even! In this vein, I decided to take a page from Royce at Vegans of Color and post my notes, along with some questions and points of discussion. Can you relate to any of the concepts proposed by Joy? In your opinion, what are the theory’s strengths and weaknesses?
Notes: Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism; The Belief System That Enables Us to Eat Some Animals and Not Others
Carnism is the invisible belief system (or ideology) that underlies our unthinking consumption of meat, a behavior which we’ve so internalized that it’s not even recognized as a choice, but rather “just the way it is.” [p. 29-30]
“A schema is a psychological framework that shapes – and is shaped by – our beliefs, ideas, perceptions, and experiences, and it automatically organizes and interprets incoming information.” [p. 14]
“Generalizations are the result of schema doing what they’re supposed to: sorting through and interpreting the vast amount of stimuli we’re constantly exposed to and then putting it into general categories. Schemas act as mental classification systems.” [p. 14]
Schemas also filter information – “we tend to notice and remember only that which confirms our preexisting assumptions.” (i.e., confirmation bias) [p 132]
We have schemas for everything, including animals and food.
Carnistic schemas underlie the carnistic system.
The carnistic system goes to great lengths to block our empathy because we 1) care about animals and do not want them to suffer but we also 2) want to continue to eat them. Thus, we must: “change our perception of our behaviors so that they appear to match our values.” [p. 18]
We do this through psychic numbing:
“Psychic numbing is a psychological process by which 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.” [p. 18-19]
Joy refers to past systemic/institutionalized cases of exploitation and oppression as examples of the latter, including slavery, the Holocaust and women’s suffrage.
- Question: Can you think of any others?
The mechanisms of psychic numbing include:
I. Invisibility
Together, denial + avoidance = invisibility, “the foundation on which all other mechanisms stand.” [p. 21]
Carnism is to vegetarianism as
carnivore is to herbivore as
meat-eater is to planter-eater.
‘Carnism’ and ‘vegetarianism’ describe philosophical or ethical systems that justify a specific diet;
‘carnivore’ and ‘herbivore’ describe one’s biological constitution; and
‘meat-eater’ and ‘plant-eater’ describe specific behaviors.
While ‘vegetarian’ is part of our vocabulary, ‘carnism’ is not.
Because the belief system that supports ‘meat’ remains unnamed, it’s seen as something natural, inevitable, existing outside of a belief system. [p. 28-29] – Or it’s not seen at all – it’s invisible. We can avoid thinking about it because we lack the tools (words) with which to talk about it.
This is reinforced by the term ‘vegetarianism’ – the choice not to eat meat is both named and visible.
1. Denial, or “practical invisibility”
“As with any violent ideology, the populace must be shielded from direct exposure to the victims of the system, lest they begin questioning the system or their participation in it.” [p. 40]
- Question: What are some historical examples of this?
We consume 10 billion land animals per year – but where are they!?
- Question: How does the system keep ‘food’ animals invisible from us?
Likewise, we kill 10 billion sea animals per year. [p. 65] – BUT
“Many of us feel so removed from fish and other commonly consumed creatures of the sea that we don’t even think of their flesh as meat. [...] We relate to the animals of the sea as if they were anomalous plants, plucking them from the ocean as easily as we pluck an apple from a tree.” [p. 63] AND
“[B]ecause sea animals appear so fundamentally different from humans, so alien [so Other - ed.] we feel sufficiently distanced from them so that their suffering remains invisible even when it’s in plain sight.” [p. 67]
2. Avoidance, or symbolic invisibility
“knowing without knowing” – those who profit off the system hide carnism from us, and yet, “we make their job easy for them” because we want to be fooled [p. 71]
Even as we allow ourselves to be hoodwinked in order to maintain the system, we are carnism’s indirect victims: animal ag. pollutes the environment and our bodies, and is physically and psychologically damaging to the workers it employs. [p. 75-87] Also, it is fundamentally a racist and classist system b/c it exploits the “lowest” among us to survive.
“Bureaucracy helps render genocide unreal.” – Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors [p. 87]
Violent ideologies are undemocratic, inasmuch as they “rely on deception, secrecy, concentrated power, and coercion.” [p. 88]
Animal ag. is a $125 billion industry controlled by just a handful of corporations. [p. 88]
There is much public-private overlap between animal ag. and the gov’t; for example, “the ‘revolving door’ through which corporate executives and governmental officers exchange positions and strengthen networks.” [p. 89] Thus, animal ag. sets the legislative agenda; laws protect businesses vs. consumers. [p. 90]
II. Justification – The 3 Ns
We use a series of myths in order to convince selves of the “justness” of carnism. [p. 96]
In addition to animal ag. and the gov’t, carnism “is supported by every major institution in society” [p. 98] – the ultimate goal of which is to legitimize carnism (they are the “mythmakers” of carnism). The legal system (for ex., by classifying animal as property) and news media (e.g., by picking, choosing and framing stories) are esp. important in legitimizing carnism. [p. 103-105]
3. Normal
Carnism has become normalized, such that its tenets are social norms; “social norms aren’t merely descriptive – describing how the majority of people behave – they are also prescriptive, dictating how we ought to behave. Norms are socially constructed.” [p. 105]
“Free choice” is a myth when the system has been constructed such that alternative choices are invisible, unfeasible, unpopular. [p. 106]
“It is impossible to exercise free will as long as we are operating from within the system.” [p. 113]
4. 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.” [p 107]
Yet, there are many practices that are “natural” [occur in nature? what do we mean by "natural," anyway?] that we no longer consider justifiable (rape, infanticide).
5. Necessary
“The belief that eating meat is necessary is closely connected to the belief that eating meat is natural.” [p. 109]
The “necessity” of carnism makes it seem inevitable; not a choice. But clearly it is a choice (in industrialized nations, anyhow).
III. The Cognitive Trio: “Distancing” [Othering?]
Technology reinforces TCT b/c it literally transforms animals into mass-produced objects, machines, “units of production.”
TCT prevents us from identifying with animals; this, in turn, strips away our empathy; and the less we empathize w/an animal, the less our disgust at the thought of eating them. [para 125-126]
6. Objectification
“Objectification is the process of viewing a living being as an inanimate object, a thing.” [p. 117]
Animals are objectified through: language, property status.
- Question: How else are nonhuman animals objectified? What about examples involving human animals?
7. Deindividualization
“Deindividualization is the process of viewing individuals only in terms of their group identity and as having the same characteristics as everyone else in the group.” [p. 119] – Individuals as abstractions.
Animals are deindividualization when we dismiss their actions as (shared) instinct vs. (individualized) intellect.
- Question: How else do we deindividualize nonhuman animals?
This is why we’re disgusted at the idea of eating a familiar animal, e.g., dogs, because most of us are intimately acquainted with dogs as individuals.
8. Dichotomization
“Dichotomization is the process of mentally putting others into two, often opposing, categories based on our beliefs about them.” [p. 122]
e.g.: human/nonhuman; food/not-food; wild animal/domesticated; stupid/intelligent; cute/ugly; clean/dirty
- Question: What other binary opposites do we use to classify animals?
IV. Additional mechanisms
9. Routinization – mentioned as a mechanism but never explained fully?
10. Rationalization: “the defense mechanism by which we provide a rational explanation for something that is not rational.” [p. 128]
11. Dissociation: “is psychologically and emotionally disconnecting from the truth of our experience; it is the feeling of not being fully ‘present’ or conscious.” Is the “heart of psychic numbing.” [p. 140]
In order to overcome these, we must “bear witness” – make the invisible, visible.
- Question: How can we as animal advocates best accomplish this?
——————
Finally, here’s a short “trailer” for the book that I found on YouTube. The video begins with a reenactment of a hypothetical scenario presented by Joy in the book’s opening, which also served as the inspiration for the “baby soup” photo above. Enjoy! (Or not.)
——————
CC photo via Flickr user superbez. “Meat Soup”: Flanked by onions, carrots and celery, a plump human baby marinates in a pot of water. Nom!
Trackbacks
- Intersectionality Includes Animals « Vegans of Color
- Lost’s Sayid Jarrah: A History of Violence » POP! goes The Vegan.
- Colleen Patrick-Goudreau says, “Wake up, bacon breath!” » V for Vegan: easyVegan.info
- Intersectionality ‘Round the Interwebs, No. 17: F-O-O-D. * » V for Vegan: easyVegan.info
- Let’s make some noise for the Sistah Vegan anthology! « Vegans of Color
- On Carnism: Why Do We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows ? » V for Vegan: easyVegan.info
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
How would you say carnism differs from speciesism? Is it really different, and if so, is the word carnism really needed?
I do like the work om Dr Joy, though. We need more people like her, and we need to get them out into the public arena as much as possible.
I haven’t read the book, though I did listen to an interview with Melanie Joy on Ed Coffin’s podcast, Eating Consciously. I found the conversation a bit frustrating to listen to because she kept talking about “meat” without acknowledging other animal uses, such as dairy and egg consumption, attendance of zoos and rodeos, wearing fur and leather, etc.
To me, these things are all part of the same mentality of human supremacy over other living beings, and I wasn’t comfortable with the focus on “meat” as if flesh consumption is somehow different from other uses of animals. And I was left wondering what her definition of “vegetarianism” is. In the interview, she called vegetarianism the opposite of carnism, so I assume that she means a version of vegetarianism that avoids, at least, all flesh foods (not those “vegetarians” who eat chicken and fish), but how do other forms of animal use fit within her analysis? She did not mention the word “vegan” in the interview, at least as far as I can remember, so I’m wondering if it comes up in the book at all?
I find the term carnism intriguing, but I’m not sold on it so far. Speciesism seems like a more useful concept because it takes into account all forms of animal use and exploitation, while carnism seems to imply a strict focus on “meat.”
I found the conversation a bit frustrating to listen to because she kept talking about “meat” without acknowledging other animal uses, such as dairy and egg consumption, attendance of zoos and rodeos, wearing fur and leather, etc. To me, these things are all part of the same mentality of human supremacy over other living beings, and I wasn’t comfortable with the focus on “meat” as if flesh consumption is somehow different from other uses of animals.
In the interview Alexandra is referring to, I was discussing my book. And because more animals are exploited for meat, dairy, and eggs than by all other forms of animal exploitation combined, I chose to focus my book on eating animals. Moreover, I believe that as long as people continue to eat animal products, this behavior will continue to shape their perception and feelings toward animal exploitation; the most intimate and frequent contact most people have with other animals (other than companion animals) is through eating their bodies.
To have written a book on speciesism rather than carnism would have been to alienate 98% of my readership. Peter Singer (and others) already wrote about speciesism, and though his book is invaluable, it isn’t a mass market book. Asking the average (meat-eating) reader to a) examine human supremacy and b) consider the implications of such examination on their lives and the world (e.g., possibly giving up what they see as lifesaving scientific advances in medicine) is asking to alienate rather than invite readers into the conversation.
We can consider carnism, as Kelly says, a subset of speciesism, just as, for instance, anti-Semitism is a subset of racism. There’s a reason we name subsets of other “isms” – because they have their own character and must be addressed as such, even though they’re part of a whole.
And I was left wondering what her definition of “vegetarianism” is. In the interview, she called vegetarianism the opposite of carnism, so I assume that she means a version of vegetarianism that avoids, at least, all flesh foods (not those “vegetarians” who eat chicken and fish), but how do other forms of animal use fit within her analysis? She did not mention the word “vegan” in the interview, at least as far as I can remember, so I’m wondering if it comes up in the book at all?
In my book I explain that carnism and veganism exist on a continuum.
@ Edanator – The way Joy explains it, “carnism” refers specifically to our culture of meat-eating; the phenomenon encompasses all the mental gymnastics we use to justify the unjustifiable, i.e., our systemic and unnecessary exploitation and consumption of animals. Carnism is the invisible counterpart of vegetarianism.
In contrast, speciesism is a more general term; it’s any sort of discrimination or prejudice based solely on species membership. Certainly, speciesism informs carnism; we arbitrarily decide which animals are “for eating” based on species membership.
That said, I do wish Joy had included speciesism in her analysis. I approached the book with your same skepticism – i.e., Isn’t carnism just another word for speciesism? – but in the end, I can see some value in the term (especially for shaping how activists approach our culture of meat), even if there’s an overlap with speciesism. Probably I’d classify carnism as a consequence or subset of speciesism.
@Alexandra – Yes, that frustrates me as well. Joy completely omits any discussion of milk, eggs, or other edible animal products from Carnism. Possibly this is because the general public considers eggs, milk, leather, etc. “byproducts” of the meat industry rather than dedicated animal ag. operations in and of themselves; thus, many/most of our justifications for consuming animals center solely on meat. Or perhaps she thinks different processes are at play there (and in other animal exploitation industries as well)? Of course, she could be a vegetarian / welfarist and not see a problem with these uses, however, I don’t think that’s the case – she does refer to animal “use” and property status as problems to be overcome, rather than institutions to be upheld. But I can’t say for certain.
But again, I think there’s some value in teasing out the different processes at play in our (ab)uses of animals. It’s interesting to note, for example, where else the mechanisms she identifies pop up; e.g., vivisected animals are invisible to the public, while with captive/”zoo” animals, it’s exactly the opposite. Dichotomization, objectification and deindividualization are par for the course, not just in speciesism, but with human-based isms as well.
I also like the idea of naming “carnism” as a belief system akin to vegetarianism (or veganism) – “omnivore” is commonly used, but imperfect, as it deals with biology, not beliefs. Then again, I guess it depends on how one defines “veganism” – if you define it more globally than diet/lifestyle, then “speciesism” would work as a counterpart. Or perhaps all four have value: carnism is to vegetarianism as speciesism is to veganism (whereas the first two refer to dietary beliefs/food culture and the latter two encompass a broader morality).
Finally, I feel like I should also point out that the book is based on her doctoral dissertation, so…take from that what you will! :)
Joy completely omits any discussion of milk, eggs, or other edible animal products from Carnism.
In my book, I discuss the production and consumption of all animal products, including eggs, dairy, and sea “food.” Because I want the book to appeal to a meat-eating audience, for simplicity and clarity I refer to “meat” more often than “animal products” but only after having explained, in detail, the violence inherent in the production of all animal products.
I love this post. I read it this morning and took in every word. I have been really inspired lately by the talk about “turning the tables” on meat-eaters. I think it was in Th Animal Activist’s Handbook that I first heard of this way of thinking. One of the authors has a t-shirt that says, “Why do you eat meat?” So wonderful. I am always asked “Why are you a vegan?” Why are we the only ones who have to answer questions about our food choices? Meat-eaters are (consciously or not) making food choices as well.
I think we need to be less apologetic, less accepting of our “fringe”-ness. We are living the way everyone should be living, but they haven’t realized it yet. I don’t think veganism is “what’s right for me.” I think it’s what’s right for anyone that can do it (and most of us can). Why be ashamed of that?
Thank you for posting this. I’m picking up the book next time I see it.
“Why do you eat meat?”
I’d love to see Food Fight or Herbivore use that quote on a tee!
I was a psych major also and enjoyed this book for its psychological/sociological explanation of meat-eating. I didn’t read all of your outline, but I’ll comment on the book. I read an advance copy as a Vine reviewer for Amazon, and then just reread it because I was planning to go see her speak Sunday (actually I did go, but I didn’t stay because the small restaurant where she was speaking was already standing room only when I got there).
I think the importance of “carnism” is simply to make clear that eating meat is a choice, just as not eating it is. One isn’t normal and the other not. Late in the book, she makes clear that the audience she’s addressing is people who are considering becoming vegetarians and people who are just beginning to question why our society treats animals the way it does. That may be why she doesn’t go deeply into beyond basic vegetarian issues and why some of the items listed as resources and food alternatives aren’t the best choices. But the chapter on factory farming does include some material on milk and egg production.
I felt one weakness of the book was that she seemed to think most people would change their behavior if confronted with the facts which I think is just another form of denial. She mentions the many people she’s met in her life who have changed, but ignores the undoubtedly much larger number who haven’t. Similarly, her contention that the process of meat production needs to remain invisible ignores the many people who are quite willing to hunt and kill or raise and kill animals.
Still, I thought it was very good to see someone taking this approach and attempting to explain why so many animal lovers eat animals.
I think the importance of “carnism” is simply to make clear that eating meat is a choice, just as not eating it is.
Yes!
Similarly, her contention that the process of meat production needs to remain invisible ignores the many people who are quite willing to hunt and kill or raise and kill animals.
Agreed. I’d be interested to hear her thoughts on this; are different processes at play, or are other defense mechanisms working overtime to compensate? (She does mention in passing that hunter-gatherers have engaged in certain rituals re: animal slaughter and consumption, perhaps to alleviate some guilt over killing living beings – I wish she had explored this topic a little more.)
Likewise, I think many of the concepts introduced in Carnism could be integrated into a more comprehensive theory regarding the “psychology of speciesism.” (I did a quick Amazon search, but wasn’t able to find anything along those lines.)
I wasn’t too happy with the resource list, either. PETA and the HSUS? Meh. Where are the vegan starter kits!?
Late in the book, she makes clear that the audience she’s addressing is people who are considering becoming vegetarians and people who are just beginning to question why our society treats animals the way it does. That may be why she doesn’t go deeply into beyond basic vegetarian issues and why some of the items listed as resources and food alternatives aren’t the best choices.
The book is for carnists, new vegetarians, and vegans. The resources for the former groups are those that I believe they are most likely to access, not necessarily those I would choose for myself. The food alternatives are all vegan, as are many of the starter kits. And vegans who read the book can feel more grounded and empowered in their choices and better informed about the system they’re working to transform.
I felt one weakness of the book was that she seemed to think most people would change their behavior if confronted with the facts which I think is just another form of denial. She mentions the many people she’s met in her life who have changed, but ignores the undoubtedly much larger number who haven’t.
Actually, as I describe throughout the book, the whole purpose of the book is to go beyond simply presenting the “facts” about meat production because the facts themselves rarely sell the ideology. I discuss how more often than not the facts fade from one’s memory because the system is set up to prevent the truth from sticking. My hope is that making people aware of the facts of carnism, not simply of meat production, will help them move beyond it.
Similarly, her contention that the process of meat production needs to remain invisible ignores the many people who are quite willing to hunt and kill or raise and kill animals.
I do mention how even those people who kill animals themselves use some degree of psychic numbing. I don’t spend much time on this issue because a) it isn’t empirically researched and to extend my argument beyond what I’ve got “evidence” for is to limit my credibility and b) hunting/farming is the least of the problems facing animals today and my book is not directed toward hunters or farmers but to the average meat consumer who drives the massive animal agribusiness industry.
First off, I want to point out that a key goal of my book is to raise awareness about the animal agribusiness industry and reduce animal suffering. So, this necessarily precludes writing a vegan manifesto that addresses human supremacy and all forms of speciesism. What I chose to include and leave out of the book reflects not my personal orientation but what I (and my editors) felt would increase the chances that its message would be heard—that would make more people want to read the book, and that would make those who do read it more likely to reflect on their choices as food consumers. So I have kept the language simple (using “meat” more often than “animal products”) and avoided digressions that don’t address the experience of our target audience of meat consumers (e.g., I discuss hunting/farming but only in passing).