Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows

[논둑길맨발로]

 

Review: Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows

10 Feb

An Introduction to Carnism

Melanie Joy: Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism (Conari Press, 2010).

When I read non-fiction, I read it very differently from reading fiction. And when I read a book like this about animal ethics, about vegetarianism and how to stop eating meat, I try to read it very carefully and I try keep my emotions out of it – which is very hard when reading about how we treat animals, even though this is a decent book without a lot of emotional blackmailing.
I’ll just mention before anybody reads further, that there will be a few graphic details in the review below so be forewarned.
Melanie Joy’s point with this book is to try and investigate and explain why we are comfortable eating some animals and not others. Why do most of us feel okay with eating a cow but not a dog. Why do we feel so bad when we hear about how they treat dogs in Asia before they eat them but don’t care how pigs are treated before we eat them?
To explain this, Joy introduces the term ‘carnism’ as the opposite of vegetarianism, meaning people who have decided to eat meat: “We eat animals without thinking about what we are doing and why because the belief system that underlies this behavior is invisible. This invisible belief system is what I call carnism. Carnism is the belief system in which eating certain animals is considered ethical and appropriate.” (p. 29-30).
Our view on different animals is all about perception – how we perceive these animals determines how we treat them. We perceive dogs almost as persons so therefore we of course can’t eat them. But pigs for instance, we perceive as being dirty stupid animals, so we don’t care about eating them. This also means that when eating a pig, we don’t imagine a cute little piggy playing with other small piglets but if we were told we were eating dog, we would immediately think of a cute dog running and playing on the grass. It’s all about perception.
But if we suddenly imagined a cute calf when eating veal, would we be able to continue eating? Most people probably wouldn’t – even though we divide animals into edible and inedible and cows are classified as edible. Joy’s claim is that if we imagine the animals classified as edible as real living individual animals while eating them, then we will think differently about eating them because even though we are supposed to like eating cows for instance, the image of the actual animal might destroy this learned preference. That’s also why we talk about eating beef and not eating cow, to hide what we’re actually eating. We objectify animals, we de-individualize them and we dichotomize (classify them as edible and inedible) them – as well as think that it’s normal, necessary and natural to eat animals.
Joy has a good point when she mentions that we only like to eat a very few types of animals and feel disgusted at eating the rest – and she thinks that our lack of disgust is at least somewhat learned. And with the lack of disgust disappears also our empathy – and even though we like animals and don’t want them to suffer, we change our perception so we don’t have to think about whether the animals we are eating, actually suffered.
Joy argues that the meat industry have taught us not to feel about the animals being slaughtered by disguising as much as possible what we’re actually eating and what happens in the slaughterhouse. Therefore, her point with this book is to deconstruct the invisibility of the system and making us all bear witness to what’s really going on. Because even though billions of animals are slaughtered and eaten each year, most of us don’t see that many of them – and definitely don’t see much of the process of meat production.
She deconstruct it by telling it like it is – how are cows, pigs and chickens actually treated in the meat industry. Now, if you’ve read books like this before, none of this is truly new or shocking but the good thing about this books is that she keeps her head most of the way and at least gives the impression of being straight about the real conditions – how the meat production goes so fast that some animals are not killed at the appropriate moment but sometimes dies bit by bit as they are chopped into pieces, boiled alive, skinned alive etc. – and at the very least, it’s probably a safe bet to say that all animals die scared.
There were a few new things to me – for instance that it’s illegal in some places to boil lobsters alive because they are able to feel it, that it’s illegal in Monza, Italy, to keep goldfish confined in small bowls and that in 2005, Human Rights Watch issued a report criticizing the U.S. meat industry for working conditions so appalling that they violate basic human right (p. 80-81)!
I really liked how she argued that we are all the collateral damage of carnism because it’s not necessarily the most healthy way to eat, it’s damaging for the environment – and at least in the US the meat industry doesn’t live up to certain health standards (although we in Denmark have several meat scandals recently where super markets sold bad meat). Of course, the workers in the industry also grow accustomed to violence and sometimes act out on their family or others – or on the animals.
Now, it is clear that the United States are far behind Europe when it comes to animal rights – in Europe things are still bad but they are not as bad as in the US – as Joy also points out at several points. This doesn’t give Europeans a carte blanche to eat meat because if you accept that animals are individuals in their own right who are able to suffer (and several studies have shown them to not only be fully able to feel and suffer but also to have the emotional capacity of at least the same level as young children – something Joy doesn’t really go into), then you probably should think about whether it’s okay to eat them.
As I’ve already stated, Joy does a good job of not being too emotional, blackmailing us or using bad arguments but she does cross the line – for instance here: “Under carnism, for instance, democracy has become defines as having the freedom tho choose among products that sicken our bodies and pollute our planet, rather than the freedom to eat our food and breathe our air without the risk of being poisoned.” (p. 88). Most people making the decisions are also brought up in the system and she makes it sound like decisions makers are determined to keep us unhealthy – and at least some of the research showing the negative effect on the environment and that meat are not the healthiest choice to eat, are very recent and it takes time for all to change. (Although, of course, with the way American politics are being run with lobbyist able to buy politicians, there are some further issues in the States regarding this.)
One other thing I’ve always had a problem with is the comparison between the meat industry and the Nazis’ slaughtering of Jews. Although I don’t see human beings as in a class of our own compared to the rest of the animals, we do have a bit more mental power and I think there is at the very least a difference in degree between what we are doing to the animals – and what the Nazis did – although I do see the similarities. And maybe it’s just because I’m part of this system, this cruelty, because I haven’t chosen the right pill yet as Morpheus offered Neo in the Matrix (which Joy also references as a comparison).
What this all comes down to is, that as modern human beings we seem to have a choice – at least those of us securely living in the western parts of the world. We do not go hungry if we stop eating meat – and evidence is slowly tickling in suggesting that it is actually healthier for both ourselves and the environment to eat at the very least less meat, if not stop eating it altogether.
But why is it then so hard to do? This is because we are trained from a very small age to eat meat. Before we are able to speak for ourselves, we have our first bite of meat. I’ve read some studies where they suggested that children don’t like meat – from my own personal study of one child, I can say that isn’t true – although she prefer easily chewable stuff like sausages and ground beef.
So I’m not a vegetarian. I’m thinking about becoming it – not just because of this book but because of many books like this, because I don’t like much meat and because I don’t like the idea of animal suffering. I don’t eat a lot of meat but I try to cut down on it all the time and – as Joy also mentions – to do that, you have to face up to the facts regularly to remember why you’re doing it.
Books like this makes me cry. The descriptions of the brutality of some workers in the slaughterhouses are so incredible cruel that it’s almost impossible to understand. I’m not sure if I buy her entire argument yet – but I’m not sure whether that’s because I’ve always been brought up to live in the bubble where it’s okay to eat meat or if it’s because her arguments are not entirely valid all the way through – I’m still processing it all.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
Aldous Huxley.

http://christinarosendahl.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/review-why-we-love-dogs-eat-pigs-and-wear-cows/

On Carnism: Why Do We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows ?

March 1st, 2010 10:52 am by Kelly Garbato

Recently, I had the pleasure of reviewing Melanie Joy’s Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism (2010) though the website Basil & Spice. As a former psychology major and vegan of five years (and vegetarian for eight years on top of that), Carnism is right up my alley. Dr. Joy, a social psychologist and animal advocate, deconstructs our “meat culture,” identifying a number of key defense mechanisms that shield Westerners from an uncomfortable reality: how can we claim to “love” and “care for” nonhuman animals, yet enslave, torture, slaughter, dismember, process and consume them to the tune of tens of billions* per year? The answer lies in our carnistic system.

Carnism 101

Carnism, Joy posits, is the invisible belief system (or ideology) that underlies our unthinking consumption of “meat.” We have so internalized this behavior – “meat”-eating – that we do not even recognize it as a choice, but rather blindly accept it as a normal and necessary way of life; “meat” consumption is “just the way it is.” Carnism is the logical counterpart to vegetarianism: just as one can decide not to eat meat, so too is meat-eating a choice. And yet, while the terms “vegetarianism” and “veganism” are part of common parlance, we have no such word for “carnism.” Because the ideology that supports “meat” consumption remains unnamed, it’s seen as something natural, inevitable, existing outside of a belief system. 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. In naming, there is power. Words matter.

This is, I think, is Carnism‘s greatest strength. With the introduction of one simple, short word, Joy gives us a tool with which to single out our “meat” culture for criticism and critique. “Carnism” unveils the choices behind the curtain – choices which are so incongruous with our innate sense of compassion, Joy argues, that we must go to great lengths to defend these choices from scrutiny. At a macro level, this is called psychic numbing: “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.”

On both an individual and institutional level, we engage in a number of defense mechanisms that help us to achieve psychic numbing:

1. Denial: Also called “practical invisibility,” denial (as proposed by Joy) is the process by which the horrific realities of “meat” (and egg and dairy) production are literally kept invisible to us. For example, we “grow” billions of chickens, turkeys, pigs, cows, lambs, etc. for food every year; but where are they!? Few of us rarely, if ever, witness these animals grazing the land, rearing their offspring, sunning themselves in the grass or preening in the dirt. But they’re out there: crammed by the tens of thousands into massive, windowless buildings, located in large complexes on the outskirts of town. These animals are trucked to and from slaughter in unmarked vans; their only exposure to the outdoors comes when they await sale or death, on the auction block or at the slaughterhouse. Practically speaking, they remain invisible to us, as does their suffering. Because many of us enjoy eating “meat,” eggs and milk, this is how we like it.

2. Avoidance: The counterpart to denial, avoidance involves “symbolic invisibility”; it is “knowing without knowing.” The animal agriculture industry – with no small amount of help from the other major social institutions, such as the government and news media – feed us ridiculous, transparent lies about “meat” production, and we eagerly gobble them up. “Humane meat” is a joke; labels such as “organic,” “free range,” “grass fed,” etc. are rendered meaningless through industry lobbying and self-policing, and besides, no unnecessary death can ever be called “humane.” While the government has ostensibly established myriad rules regarding food safety, animal welfare, and environmental responsibility, again, these rules remain full of loopholes and usually go unenforced. For example, chickens aren’t considered “animals” under either the Animal Welfare Act or the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act. Polluting animal ag. monopolies may be ordered to clean up their fetid shitholes (read: manure-filled lagoons) – but it’s usually the public footing the bill through tax monies.

3. Justification: We use a series of myths in order to convince ourselves of the “justness” of carnism. These myths typically involve the 3 Ns, as Joy refers to them:

Normal – Carnism has become normalized, such that its tenets are social norms. Social norms are both descriptive (telling us how things are now) and prescriptive (dictating to us how things ought to be).

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.”

Necessary – Closely tied to the supposed “naturalness” of carnism, “meat’s” perceived “necessity” makes it seem inevitable; not a choice. But clearly “meat” consumption is a choice – in industrialized nations, anyhow – as any vegan or vegetarian can attest.

4. Objectification: Via objectification, we reduce living, sentient beings to nothing more than objects; we objectify them. Clearly, a cow is nothing like a television set – but both are considered pieces of property in our “modern,” “civilized” society.

5. Deindividualization: Through deindividualization, we strip animals of their individual identities, viewing them as pieces of a group and nothing more. One individual in the group is thought of as indistinguishable from all the rest; thus, the singular sentient beings become unfamiliar abstractions. (This is why Americans recoil at the thought of eating dog meat; most of us have either lived with or known at least one dog on a personal level. Dogs are individuals, familiars, whereas cows, pigs, fishes and chickens are not.)

8. Dichotomization: Dichotomization involves grouping animals into two distinct, often diametrically opposed, categories: food/not food, cute/ugly, dirty/clean. These categories are usually arbitrary and based on our own prejudices and stereotypes rather than any semblance of reality. Along with objectification and deindividualization, dichotomization allows us to “distance” ourselves from “food” animals at will.

9. Rationalization: To rationalize a behavior is to attempt to provide a rational explanation for a behavior that is, at its core, irrational. Animal agriculture is wasteful, unsustainable, harmful to human health and the environment, and – above all else – inherently cruel to the billions of nonhuman animals who are enslaved and killed for nothing more than human “taste” and “convenience” and corporate profits. Yet, our culture is replete with rationalizations for this most irrational of business and ethical models (for a few dozen examples, see the Defensive Omnivore Bingo cards).

10. Dissociation: Described by Joy as “the heart of psychic numbing,” dissociation is “is psychologically and emotionally disconnecting from the truth of our experience; it is the feeling of not being fully ‘present’ or conscious.” Often times, dissociation is triggered by a traumatic experience, for example, experiencing or witnessing a physical assault. Given that “meat” production involves the assault and murder of tens of billions of sentient beings per year – and “meat”- eating is, literally, the consumption of a once-living, once-feeling individual – it makes sense that the same psychological defense mechanism that protects us from reliving our own distressful experience also shields us from the uncomfortable truth that, with every animal-based meal, we are directly participating in another being’s living (and dying) hell.

A Call to Action

In order to counter carnism, Joy says that we must “bear witness” – that is, make the invisible, visible. At its core, bearing witness involves naming, identifying, and challenging our “meat”-eating culture. This can be as simple as living vegan in a non-vegan world – indeed, for many, veganism is the moral baseline – thus acting as an example of an alternative way of being. Volunteering at or donating to an animal sanctuary, attending protests, writing, photography, art-as-activism, adopting a homeless animal in need, organizing a vegan bake sale, procuring vegan and animal rights books for your local library, raising a compassionate vegan child, engaging in open rescues, shooting undercover footage of a local animal exploitation business – all of these (and more!) are examples of bearing witness. Bearing witness begins – but does not end – on one’s plate.

Carnism: A Review

Since first beginning this review (it’s taken me way too long to finish, I tell you what!), I’ve compiled and posted a sort of “outline” of Carnism on Animal Rights & AntiOppression (see: Carnism: Meat, Deconstructed); the points and comments to which Dr. Joy has kindly responded, so be sure to check it out, if you haven’t already! Additionally, Brittany Shoot – aka, The Biotic Woman – recently interviewed Joy as part of her stint at the Bitch Media Blogs; you can read parts 1 and 2 of the conversation here and here. Many of the questions and criticisms I had after first reading the book are addressed in these two spaces, and the below “pros” and “cons” reflect this accordingly.

First and foremost, I love that Joy ties carnism to similar, human-directed “violent ideologies.” Throughout the text, she gives examples of how denial, avoidance, routinization, justification, objectification, deindividualization, dichotimization, rationalization and dissociation have been – are being – used to support sexist, misogynist, racist, anti-Semitic, nationalist, and colonialist systems of oppression. In my outline of Carnism, I urge the reader to think of additional examples, beyond those offered by Joy. Hopefully, Joy’s inclusion of intersectionality in Carnism will spur her audience to make these connections for themselves, in their everyday lives. Once you open your eyes and your mind to the idea that all oppressions are linked at a root or cellular level, these intersections become evident everywhere. Perhaps this can prove a useful route to veganism for unrepentant speciesists who insist on placing humans at the top of their hierarchy? (i.e., rather than persuade them to reorder their hierarchy, demonstrate why it’s in their own best interests to dismantle the system altogether.)

Similarly, the concept of the book itself – naming carnism – is both useful and timely. Admittedly, I approached Carnism with a touch of skepticism – what is carnism, how does it differ from speciesism (if at all), and why do we need two separate terms for what seem like the same/similar concepts? However, my doubt quickly turned to excitement; while carnism is obviously related to and informed by speciesism – carnism may best be described as a subset of speciesism – the two are distinct processes. In particular, Joy won me over with her likening of carnism to vegetarianism (and veganism); all are belief systems that form the basis for our dietary habits. “Carnivore” simply can’t be substituted in place of “carnism,” as the former describes one’s biological need for meat, while the latter does not. Or, as I summarized it in my outline,

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.

Carnism is related to speciesism – and many of the same psychological mechanisms are at play in each – but the two are clearly not the same. While this became plainly evident to me as I progressed through Carnism, those who are less familiar with veganism and animal advocacy issues may have more trouble making the connection. To this end, Joy doesn’t clearly situate carnism within the more global concept of speciesism in the book.

Of course, it’s worth noting that Carnism was obviously written with two audiences in mind: vegans and vegetarians who want to learn more about the psychological underpinnings of our “meat”-obsessed culture, and omnivores who are curious about or perhaps beginning to question their diet. Seeing as the latter group may not even know what the term “speciesism” means, possibly Joy deliberately avoided a more comprehensive discussion of “isms” in order to keep it simple – and unintimidating or inoffensive – for “meat” eaters. (For additional clarification, see this comment Dr. Joy made at Animal Rights & AntiOppression.)

From past conversations I’ve had with authors and publishers, I’ve come to understand that (oftentimes, and especially in this tight economy), it makes the most financial sense to cast as wide a net possible when writing and marketing a book. Many books simply wouldn’t make it to market otherwise; and two books, penned on the same topic, but for different audiences? Fuhgeddaboudit! So while I understand the need for…multitasking?….I’m still sometimes disappointed by the results.

The lack of discussion of speciesism mentioned above is one example of this. Another is the amount of time Joy spends explaining the basics of animal agriculture – cage size, feedlots, slaughter lines, etc. – of which many vegetarians and vegans are already aware. Much of the book involves descriptions of animal agriculture; while Joy provides quotations from her own doctoral research, she also draws heavily from several animal welfare staples, including Gail Eisnitz’s Slaughterhouse (1997), Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation (2005), and Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma (2006). Having read the first over a decade ago; been exposed to excerpts from the second here and there; and nothing but disdain for the third, I found myself skimming or even skipping past these passages. While I’ve no doubt that these discussions are both necessary and useful for convincing omnivores to eschew “meat,” for me personally, those pages would have been better spent delving further into the psychology (and even sociology) of carnism. It’s a trade-off for which I blame neither Joy nor her publisher; if Carnism had been written with a smaller, already-vegan audience in mind, the book might never have been published. **

Similarly, while Joy does mention eggs and dairy, most of the focus is on “meat” consumption. Over at Animal Rights & AntiOppression, she explains her choice of word usage:

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.

Presumably, the same processes at play in carnism also work to prop up the consumption of other animal-based foodstuffs. However, because of her use of “meat” as a sort of catch-all term throughout the book, I found myself zeroing in on animal flesh to the exclusion of eggs and dairy. (It’s all about framing, yo!) Indeed, the term Joy chooses to describe the ideology of consuming animal flesh and by-products uses the Latin carne – meaning ‘flesh’ – as its root, thus suggesting that these processes only apply to “meat” consumption. Not that I have a better, more inclusive alternative in mind – carnism seems to be the best choice, particularly considering its correlates. But given the possibility for confusion, I think it might have been wise to name eggs and dairy alongside “meat,” even at the risk of alienating the omnivores in the audience. (Really, it’s only a few extra words: “meat, eggs and dairy.”)

Finally – and also owing to Joy’s diverse audience – I wasn’t especially impressed with the book’s “Resources” section. Not a few of the recommended organizations and books promote animal welfare (which is still a fundamentally speciesist ethical system) as opposed to animal rights; for example, Joy provides links to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Humane Farming Association (HFA), and describes Matthew Scully’s Dominion as “a ‘conservative case’ for animals rights.” (It’s not; in the book’s final chapter, Scully argues in favor of animal welfare, even though he spends the previous few hundred pages laying out the case for animal rights.) Puzzlingly, Joy also gives PETA mention, which seems to me a no-no if the goal is to avoid alienating one’s audience; PETA is perhaps the most divisive animal advocacy group out there, hated by omnivores and vegans alike.

Conclusion

I hope it’s evident from my lengthy review that I quite enjoyed Carnism, even if the amateur psychologist in me might have preferred book more scientific in nature (and the vegan, more radical in scope). Psychological theories and research of speciesism, animal exploitation and “meat” (and eggs and dairy!) consumption can only help us in our vegan activism and outreach, no matter the form it takes. To this end, Carnism is a valuable addition to the anti-oppressive literature.

Footnotes

* In the United States, for example, ten billion land animals – the majority of whom are chickens, but also including no small number of cows, pigs, turkeys, lambs, etc. – are killed for food every year. Up to another half a billion land animals die at the hands of the animal agriculture before reaching the dinner table, and perhaps ten billion sea-dwelling animals are similarly farmed, killed and consumed every year. That’s 20.5 billion sentient creatures, killed strictly for the dietary wants of Americans, in the time it takes our fair planet to make just one trip around the sun!

** I had a similar issue with Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animals Rights (Bob Torres, 2007), which I read last winter. Torres discusses animal rights in relation to anarchism, but because the book seems geared towards both non-anarchist vegans and non-vegan anarchists, I didn’t feel as though he made a particularly compelling case for either. I came away intrigued by anarchism – and its potential to transform society for the better, particularly that of nonhuman animals – but not knowing a whole lot about anarchism as a social system. To this end, if anyone can recommend a decent introduction to anarchism, I’m all ears. Errr, eyes.

http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/03/01/on-carnism-why-do-we-love-dogs-eat-pigs-and-wear-cows/

The Biotic Woman: A Conversation About Carnism with Melanie Joy (Pt. 1)

Social Commentary post by Brittany Shoot, Submitted by Brittany Shoot on February 8, 2010 - 12:15pm; tagged animal rights, carnism, food politics, meat, Melanie Joy, psychology, speciesism, veganism, vegetarianism.

People often think about vegetarianism or veganism as an ethical framework or intentional life choice, but in her new book, Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism, Dr. Melanie Joy posits that eating meat comes from the same type of belief system. The only difference, of course, is that consuming animal products is an invisible belief system continually reinforced by the many Western societies and “carnism”—the nearly unconscious practice of eating meat—is not part of our vocabulary the way “vegetarianism” is. The choice to eat meat is not named in our culture and therefore largely taken for granted and unquestioned. Her book is of particular interest because it explains not just why we shouldn’t eat meat, but why we do it in the first place.

Though Dr. Joy has previously written about animal rights in journals and books like Strategic Action for Animals, this is the first book-length examination of carnism as a belief system. A professor and psychologist who works to promote empowering relationships between humans, animals, and the earth, she recently spoke with me at length, and our talk is split into two parts here this week.

How do you define carnism as different from (or the same as) speciesism?

Speciesism is the ideology in which it’s considered appropriate to value some animals over others (with humans at the top of the hierarchy), while carnism is the ideology in which it’s considered appropriate to eat some of the non-human species on the lower rungs of the speciesist hierarchy. Carnism is a “subideology” of speciesism, just as anti-Semitism, for example, is a subideology of racism; it’s a specific expression‎ of a broader ideology. Speciesism is the ethos, or cultural backdrop, that makes carnism possible.

In many ways, the structure of these two ideologies is similar, but the content—what they’re focused on—differs. In other words, speciesism and carnism (actually, all exploitative “isms”) use similar social and psychological defense mechanisms to maintain themselves. These defenses condition us to numb ourselves, mentally and emotionally, to the experience of nonhuman beings. Yet while speciesism is a broad, sweeping ideology carnism is focused specifically on eating animals.

Some have argued that since eating animals is a speciesist practice, there’s no point in identifying carnism as a distinct ideology, and that focusing on carnism is actually a distraction from the deeper issue of speciesism. But though speciesism informs carnism, these ideologies are not identical. Consider, for instance, how patriarchy informs heterosexism, and yet heterosexism has specific features that make it a unique expression‎ of patriarchy. And since meat consumption causes more animal suffering than all other forms of animal exploitation combined, it only makes sense that we focus on carnism as a separate, yet connected, ideology from speciesism.

One key difference between speciesism and carnism is that carnism is a highly “personal” expression‎ of speciesism; incorporating nonhuman animals into one’s body is often the most intimate and frequent contact humans have with other species. Eating animals, therefore, very much determines how we think of and relate to other beings—how can we even begin to imagine any sort of equality among species if we continue to eat animals simply because we like the way they taste?

There is criticism about equating the suffering of humans (e.g. in slavery, in the Holocaust, in women’s suffrage) with the suffering of animals, even if there are striking comparisons. What are some of the critical similarities, and why is comparing human and non-human animal suffering important?

Despite the striking similarities among violent ideologies, those who compare the suffering of nonhuman victims with the suffering of human victims have been harshly criticized. Such criticism is in part due to a lack of awareness of the structure of violent ideologies and of the true horrors of animal exploitation. But it is also the result of the speciesist mentality we’ve all inherited. Though we know that all animals, human and nonhuman, are equally capable of feeling pain and have lives that matter to them, we nevertheless proceed as though humans are the only species that possess sentience and self-interest. Moreover, as with all forms of privilege, human privilege is deeply ingrained, largely invisible, and staunchly defended, so there’s a vested interest in maintaining the view of nonhuman beings as inferior “others” whose suffering is fundamentally different from human suffering. Of course, no two groups are ever exploited in precisely the same way, so comparisons must always be made carefully.

We need to see that all forms of exploitation are enabled by the same mechanisms and they therefore reinforce one another. The mentality that puts female humans’ reproductive systems up for legislative grabs and has shaped a “rape culture” where misogynists such as Eminem are celebrated is not terribly different from the mentality that legitimizes confining millions of female pigs in “rape racks” where they’re forcibly impregnated throughout the course of their lives simply so their children can, for instance, provide the topping for a pepperoni pizza.