Carnicism

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carnicism
Bummerandlazarus2.jpg
Joshua Norton eats meat, observed by the street dogs Bummer and Lazarus in San Francisco in the 1860s.Template: Infobox / maintenance / picture

Term coined by Melanie Joy , 2001
Related ideas Anthrozoology , speciesism , veganism , vegetarianism

According to the psychologist and vegan activist Melanie Joy, Karnismus (English Carnism ) describes an ideology according to which the consumption of certain animal species is viewed as ethically justifiable and appropriate. The term was conceived by her as a counterpart to veganism and is used, among other things, as a political catchphrase within the vegan movement .

background

The starting point of the argument is the assumption that most people in the world today eat meat not because they should, but because they chose to, and that this decision was based on beliefs about animals, the world and themselves. That the decision is not perceived as such is explained by the invisibility of the karnism. Joy defines: Carnism is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions people to eat certain animals. Carnism is essentially the opposite of veganism, as "carn" means "flesh" or "of the flesh" and "ism" refers to a belief system. (German: "Karnismus is the invisible belief system (or ideology) that people believe conditioned to eat certain kinds of animals. Karnismus is the opposite of veganism, because 'Karn' means 'meat' or 'made of meat' and 'ism' refers to a belief system. ") The term Karnismus should make visible that eating meat like vegetarianism and Veganism is also based on a belief system and not only depends on the biological nature of humans ( carnivorous or omnivorous ).

According to this assumption, a central component of the belief system is that eating meat is seen as "natural, normal and necessary" (Eng. Natural, normal and necessary ). According to Joy, karnism is supported by some defense mechanisms and often unquestioned assumptions. Further components are the categorization of a few species as edible and the acceptance of certain forms of keeping and use only for these species. Accordingly, it is society-dependent which category certain animal species are assigned to and how they are treated accordingly. Another aspect is known as the meat paradox. Most people did not want animals to suffer, but preferred a meat-based diet that could not be without animal suffering.

Origin of the term

In the 1970s, the traditional view of the moral position of animals was challenged by animal rights advocates. Among them was the psychologist Richard Ryder , who coined the term speciesism in 1971 . This defines the attribution of values ​​and rights of an individual solely on the basis of their species affiliation.

In 2001, the psychologist and animal rights advocate Melanie Joy coined the term Karnismus as a system that supports the use of animals as food, especially killing for meat. While “speciesism” means the discrimination of individuals based on their species, “Karnismus” describes a social system that not only enables such discrimination and related actions as a framework, but represents it as normality and maintains it by means of certain strategies that Joy names and analyzes. Joy compares carnism with patriarchy , since both are dominant, normative belief systems, which, due to their ubiquity, remain unrecognized.

“We don't see eating meat the way we see vegetarianism - as a choice based on a set of assumptions about animals, our world, and ourselves. Rather, we see it as a given and natural, the way things are and always will be. We eat animals without thinking about what we are doing or why we are doing it, because the belief system that underpins this behavior is invisible. I call that belief system Karnismus. "

features

justification

Joy also came up with the idea of ​​the “three Ns of justification”. With these she describes the phenomenon that meat eaters would often view the consumption of meat as “normal, natural and necessary”. Other psychologists add “nice” to this, which in this case can be translated as “delicious”. She argues that people in the past used the same "three Ns" to justify other ideologies, such as: B. the patriarchy. The “Three Ns” are generally recognized as problematic only after an ideology has been exposed as such.

This argument claims that people are conditioned to believe that they have become meat eaters per se, that they are expected to eat meat, and that they need meat to stay healthy and survive. Social institutions such as religion, family and the media would support these assumptions. For example, there is a widespread assumption that meat is absolutely necessary as a source of protein, although studies have shown that you can meet your needs without it.

Building on Joy's work, a number of psychological studies were conducted in Australia and the United States. According to these, the vast majority of people justify their meat consumption with “4 Ns” - “natural, normal, necessary and tasty (in English nice )”. The associated arguments are that people are omnivores (omnivores) (of course), that most people ate meat (normal), that a vegetarian diet results in a lack of nutrients (necessary) and that meat tastes good (tasty or nice ).

The study participants who supported these arguments also showed less guilty conscience about their diet. They tended to objectify animals, had less moral interest in them, and gave them less awareness. In addition, they were less critical of social inequality and hierarchical structures and showed less pride in their consumer behavior.

The "4 Ns" represented philosophical arguments:

Categorization

A central feature of Carnicism is the categorization of animals as edible, inedible , domestic animal, vermin, predator or amusement animal. According to human schemes, mental classifications, which support our beliefs and our desires and are supported by them. There are major cultural differences as to which animals are considered food and which are not. Dogs are eaten in China, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and South Korea, while in other cultures they are considered family members or are labeled unclean in the Middle East and some parts of India. Cows are eaten in the west but revered in India. Pigs are scorned by Jews and Muslims, but are considered food in many other cultures. Joy and other psychologists argue that these taxonomies determine how animals are treated, that they affect subjective perceptions of their sentience and intelligence, and that they reduce or increase empathy and moral concern for and for them.

The meat paradox

Traditional Thanksgiving pardon for a turkey by the President of the United States ( National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation )

Another key characteristic is the tension between most people's desire not to harm animals and choosing a diet that is harmful to animals. This is known as the meat paradox. Psychologists assume that this conflict between values ​​and behavior leads to cognitive dissonance , which meat eaters try to mitigate in various ways. For example, Bastian Brock et al. found that meat-eaters facilitate the practice of meat-eating by ascribing little intelligence, emotional experience and moral value to the animals they eat. Psychologists claim that meat eaters reduce cognitive dissonance by minimizing their perception of animals as conscious, pain-sensitive, and suffering creatures, especially with regard to the animals they consider food. This is a psychologically effective strategy, because organisms that are ascribed a lower pain perception are consequently also considered to be morally less worthy of protection and their use as food is more widely accepted.

In 2010, a study asked university students to eat either beef jerkey or cashew nuts and then assess the moral worth and cognitive abilities of a range of animals. Compared to the students who ate cashew nuts, the students who ate meat placed less moral value on animals and denied cows the ability to attain a mental state that included the ability to suffer.

Another 2011 study found that most people believed it was more appropriate to kill animals for consumption if they believed they had lower mental abilities. Conversely, the study participants rated animals as having lower mental abilities when they were told that these animals would be eaten. Another study concluded that people who read a description of an exotic animal found it less sympathetic and susceptible to suffering if they were told that the animal was eaten in the region.

Another strategy for dealing with the internal conflict is to ignore considerations about the origin and manufacture of animal products. Joy argues that this is why meat dishes are rarely served with the animals' heads or other parts of their bodies intact.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Melanie Joy: Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism. Conari Press, 2009, p. 9, ISBN 1-57324-505-4 .
  2. ↑ What is Carnicism? on karnismus-erkennen.de from the German Vegetarian Association , January 15, 2016.
  3. ↑ Know more about the word 'Carnism' ( Memento of the original from January 25, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. on mathrubhumi.com from June 29, 2015. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / mathrubhumi.com
  4. ↑ Joy 2011, p. 32.
  5. ↑ What is Carnism? on carnism.org.
  6. ↑ Joy 2011, p. 30 ff.
  7. ↑ a b Joy 2011, p. 96
  8. ↑ a b c d e f Martin Gibert, Élise Desaulniers: Carnism . In: Paul B. Thompson, David M. Kaplan (Eds.): Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. Springer Netherlands, 2014, pp. 292–298.
  9. ↑ Steve Loughnan, Boyka Bratanova, Elisa Puvia: The Meat Paradox: How Are We Able to Love Animals and Love Eating Animals? . In: In-Mind Italia. 2011, 1, pp. 15-18.
  10. ↑ Richard D. Ryder: Experiments on Animals. In: Stanley Godlovitch, Roslind Godlovitch, John Harris (Eds.): Animals, Men and Morals. Grove Press, 1971.
  11. ↑ Sandra Mahlke: The power relationship between humans and animals in the context of linguistic distancing mechanisms. Anthropocentrism, Speciesism, and Carnicism in Critical Discourse Analysis. Hamburg 2014, p. 19.
  12. ↑ a b Jesse Singal: The 4 Ways People Rationalize Eating Meat , in: New York Magazine, June 4, 2015
  13. ↑ a b c d e Jared Piazza et al .: Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns , in: Appetite 91, 2015, pp. 114–128
  14. ↑ Joy 2011, p. 97.
  15. ^ A b c Rebecca Fox: Normal, Natural, Necessary and Nice. In: Reasonable Vegan. August 22, 2015. Retrieved June 26, 2017 .
  16. ↑ a b Joy 2011, pp. 14, 17
  17. ↑ Anthony L. Podberscek: Good to Pet and Eat: The Keeping and Consuming of Dogs and Cats in South Korea , in: Journal of Social Issues , 2009, 65 (3), pp 615-632, S. 617
  18. ↑ Hal Herzog: Having Your Dog and Eating It Too? , in: Psychology Today , 2011
  19. ↑ Chad Lavin: Eating Anxiety: The Perils of Food Politics , University of Minnesota Press, 2013, pp. 116-117
  20. ↑ a b Steve Loughnan et al .: The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals , in: Appetite 55 (1), 2010, pp. 156-159
  21. ↑ a b c d Bastian Brock et al .: Don't mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption , in: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (2), 2011, pp. 247-256
  22. ↑ Lois Presser: Why We Harm , 2011, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 50-68
  23. ↑ a b Adam Waytz, Kurt Gray, Nicholas Epley, Daniel M. Wegner: Causes and consequences of mind perception , in: Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14 (8), 2010, pp 383-388
  24. ↑ Joy 2011, p. 16.