The Joy of Meat, Redux

Yesterday morning was busy for me and I had time only to mention some tidbits about the "joy" of meat and not to deconstruct. Some of you started for me, and I thank you.

Without further ado, let's deconstruct "Rediscovering the Joy of Meat:"

• The photo. That photo. The "joy" in the faces of the people whose "business has picked up due to a resurgence in meat." They are happy indeed, with parts of sentient beings draped over them, and one holding a dead pig. Worst of all, two of them are former vegetarians.
  
  • Here's what I was thinking about on and off yesterday: Vegetarianism has nothing to do with veganism. By its very definition of using animals, we have no reason to think that vegetarianism will lead to veganism as long as suffering is the impetus to become a vegetarian. Though now I think (hope?) more people are aware that no egg, glass of milk or slice of cheese is without suffering, the mainstream public appears to be so attached to its animal products that it will believe just about anything in order to rationalize continual consumption. It makes perfect sense that vegetarians would go back to eating meat, as they haven't internalized the notion that use is abuse.

With that said, most vegans over 40 ate animals as children and gradually stopped, usually with vegetarianism as their final step on the way. So in that sense, there is a spectrum that illustrates what actually occurs in the real world when people become vegans. It has eating animals, wearing animals, "enjoying" them as entertainment or education, and using speciesist language on one end, and veganism in practice (including non-speciesist language) on the other end. (When Rae Sikora does this exercise, there are at least a handful of steps from one end of the spectrum to the other.)

Here's the issue then: Perhaps vegetarians and omnivores aren't being exposed to the idea that use equals dominance and oppression. It is a violation of someone's right to live their own life. And that is not only unjust, but it's abuse. Therefore, if abuse and suffering are what vegetarians and even some omnivores (you know, the compassionate ones) are worried about, they should take that notion to its logical conclusion--which is full circle to where it started--use. Use equals abuse is what's missing for most people. Use equals abuse.

It's fitting that the author of Carnivore Chic thinks the shift back to meat began with the vegetarian movement, as vegetarians tend to be concerned primarily with abuse. Decrease the abuse a bit, and they're happy.

• Regarding the author of The Shameless Carnivore, Scott Gold, who said: "Vegetarianism I suppose became equated with being more emotionally or morally evolved, but now the tide is really turning. If you try grass-fed, locally, humanely raised meat, it's not only significantly better for your health, it's better for the animal. It's not just good for the environment, but also, ultimately, once again, it all comes down to taste." (Susan C. found this quote odd, as well--see comments from yesterday).
  
  • I agree with Gold that vegetarianism--for the mainstream--became equated with being more morally evolved. However, he loses me with "but now the tide is really turning." Are vegetarians now less morally evolved? Are "carnivores" more morally evolved? If so, how can one be more morally evolved if one is killing someone without necessity? More evolved than whom? I'm confused. But all that confusion aside, Gold's most problematic belief is in the existence of "humanely raised meat" (not animals--meat). He believes in it "ultimately" because "[i]t tastes good. It's as simple as that." And that's the real issue. Let's not kid ourselves about why this is happening. Many people want to eat what they want to eat. And they'll pay a premium to have someone tell them they have no reason to feel bad about killing, even if they know that's a lie. Taste buds trump ethics.

As for the article on animal experimentation, yesterday afternoon a PeTA alert (thanks for sending it, Sarah) suggests we contact our congresspeople and senators and ask them to: "hold a Congressional hearing into the creation and funding of a new entity to oversee the implementation of the NAS recommendations to incorporate humane, fast, and effective non-animal test methods into government-required testing with all due speed." I don't like the word "incorporate," so I'll write "replace" or something like it. The PeTA letter isn't perfect, and I wouldn't use it, but it does give you a nice structure for your own letter.

The moral of the stories? We need to make our position clear. I think part of not doing so comes from the invalid yet ubiquitous accusation that we're fanatical and extreme. It is of course easily countered with: That depends on your definition of fanaticism. If it means the practice of aligning one's actions with one's beliefs and avoiding hypocrisy, then I am guilty.

Comments

[Angus]

"Perhaps vegetarians and omnivores aren't being exposed to the idea that use equals dominance and oppression."

I agree with Nick Fiddes, author of the book Meat: A Natural Symbol, who argues that meat is esteemed precisely because it does symbolize dominance. And of course Carol J. Adams argues this too in The Sexual Politics of Meat. "Compassionate carnivores" are like slave-owners who honestly believe simultaneously in their absolute God-given right to own slaves and in their obligation to be good, humane stewards of these resources. I'm sure there were many slave-owners who were genuinely appalled at those who blatantly abused their slaves and who no doubt said that the abusers were giving slavery a bad name.

Meat-eating and animal exploitation in general is going to be very, very hard to eradicate because animal liberation doesn't just threaten economic interests and dietary habits. It poses an existential threat to many/most people's conception of the ultimate worth and ultimate fate of humans. So if you point out to people that "humane" meat is still domination and exploitation, the likely response will be, "Thank God for that."

[Elaine Vigneault]

"It makes perfect sense that vegetarians would go back to eating meat, as they haven't internalized the notion that use is abuse."

I think that's a little unfair. I've known lots of vegetarians and none have gone back to eating meat. None.
The only people I know personally who have "gone back to eating meat" never really gave it up in the first place. They just called themselves vegetarian, but kept eating fishes or chickens.

There are lots of reasons why people get to vegetarianism and stop there instead of going further to veganism. It's not just about suffering versus use. It's about convenience, social acceptance, fear, ignorance, and more.

[Mary Martin]

Angus,

I have witnessed the epiphanies of others once the dominance discussion is raised (in 2007-2008, and not with the average person). Most had never consciously addressed it before, and none would have read Adams or Fiddes (and I haven't read the latter). But when the subject is broached, they're most receptive (particularly if the context is social justice and nonviolence). Now, this is not to say they immediately change their behavior, but they have taken the first tiny step in changing their thinking.

Maybe I'm delusional, but at least in my personal advocacy, there is a recognition that oppression is not good and it's not just about humans. Again, a tiny step, but I'll take anything I can get.

Elaine,

We have very different experiences.

I say "It makes perfect sense that vegetarians would go back to eating meat, as they haven't internalized the notion that use is abuse." It does make perfect sense--to me. I'm not talking about every single vegetarian, but the ones I know who have gone back to eating meat, and I know dozens (including myself 10 years ago--and most were veg while they lived in ashrams or during grad school), did so because the reason they stopped was that they didn't want to cause suffering. They resumed because they thought they were causing less suffering than they were causing before (and they had good reason to think that, as they were being told that by their animal rights and welfare groups). And that's my point. And it's exactly what the articles and radio shows and books I've been referring to confirm. I think--and maybe it's wishful thinking--that if advocates for animals presented use as abuse from the start, we might make more progress.

[Judy Stone]

"Use equals abuse." That is a phrase that I have been using for about ten years on the Animal Advocates site. And I point out that the root of the word abuse is use; that you can't have use without ab-use.

The phrase is short, punchy, and accurate, and ought to be effective, and yet my experience has been that most people, even educated and compassionate people, don't get it. They look puzzled, and often ask me if I include pets, even those pets who live perfect, joyous lives, provided with every social and physical need.

Sometimes I have that conversation with fellow dog-lovers as we are out with our dogs in free-run parks where they can explore in the woods, swim in the creeks, chase each other, run their legs off, and know that the ones they love are close by to protect them. I don't think I've ever successfully turned anyone's perception around when I say that it is abuse to enslave any other being; that happy slaves and kind slave-owners can't justify slavery; that in fact good slave-owners prolonged slavery. I lose them when I say that good pet owners justify owing pets, and that kind people like us are one of the reasons pet-slavery persists, because of the "perfect, joyous life" we give our pets. It is because I rescue dogs from some of the most indefensible abuse and assure them of "perfect, joyous lives" that I came to realize that good pet owners justified owning pets and were therefore responsible for the persistence of pet abuse.

I read once that slavery was only abolished in the civilized world when enough people understood that it was utterly wrong in principle and therefore no consideration could justify it. This only happened when enough people overcame the separation of "them" from "us"; that even though slaves' skins were black not white, they were fellow human beings.

How long will it take to overcome the separation of "them" from "us" when the fellow beings don't look anything like us at all and when they don't even know that they are enslaved and cannot speak against it?

Happily for me, I see progress. Not very long ago anyone who said that all sentient beings were equals in principle, even if very different in appearance and ability, and that we had no more right to use them than we had to abuse them, were dismissed as "radicals" (an inadvertent compliment, as the word radical means root, and these people had understood that the root of animal abuse is animal use and that we are all sentient beings in spite of our different appearances). Now the word specism is catching up with sexism in the public's perception of anciest wrongs. Of course there's thousands of centuries of ingrained "isms" of all stripes to overcome, but one by one they are falling. Specism will fall too.

Judy Stone
Animal Advocates Society of BC

[Nathan Schneider]

"This only happened when enough people overcame the separation of 'them' from 'us'" - Judy Stone

Yes, I agree. We will never dismantle speciesism while people are uncomfortable with the simple idea that humans are animals, which is why I started my pamphlet with that claim.

"It's not just about suffering versus use. It's about convenience, social acceptance, fear, ignorance, and more." - Elaine Vigneault

I agree to a point. Those are certainly noteworthy impediments. Strong enough, that unless people get serious about the moral imperative of rejecting use, they often end up trapped within the nether-land of the spectrum view. When the problem is seen as suffering, and the philosophical approach generally allows that whatever moves toward alleviating/reducing suffering is positive... many people will feel okay/validated in conceding to those impediments, and shunning full-bodied veganism.

1) Right now we have: suffering + utilitarianism = just move a little further along the "spectrum"
2) We need to move toward: use + deontologicalism = go vegan, you really don't have a choice

Alternative way to write (1)... cruelty + welfarism
Alternative way to write (2)... exploitation + rights theory

[Edgar]

I think we're going to be seeing a continuing resurgence of meat consumption for quite a different reason. I predict that over the next few years, we will see increasing amounts of evidence that eating animal products is healthy. Sounds crazy? Let me explain.

I just got done reading a book called, "Good Calories, Bad Calories", by Gary Taubes. Taubes makes the argument that the nutritional establishment has been dead wrong in advocating a diet that's low in fat and high in carbohydrates. In fact, Taubes claims that the healthiest diet is one that is high in protein (i.e., meat), high in fat, and very low in carbohydrates. These ideas make him sound like a crank, but he's got an established track record as an award-winning science journalist, and he has amassed impressive evidence to back up his claims. The New York Times recently gave him a very favorable write-up:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html

Just yesterday, Taubes gave a lecture at a conference for the American Society of Bariatric Physicians. I point this out because I want to emphasize that the establishment is starting to listen to him.

As I said, I've read Taubes's book, and I've done some additional reading -- and I fear that he may be right. I will remain a vegan no matter what happens, but I think that our job as animal advocates is going to be made that much more difficult as the nutritional establishment begins to question the wisdom of low-fat, low-meat diets. If you think I'm crazy, click on the New York Times link above, and read the article.