On What’s in a Name and What We’re Missing
The problem with the idea of "Compassionate Carnivores," as I see it, is the name, for two reasons:
- Compassionate doesn’t belong with carnivore.
- Omnivore is more accurate, as long as we’re talking about language.
I should tell you that the website’s creator has taken the Niman book off the reading list, which I thought was a nice start, as telling veggies-in-progress how to cook animals seems a bit contradictory.
Next, you know how many of us have friends who claim to love animals and would never hurt one, at least not until their next meal? And you know how we try to educate them about a glass of milk containing as much suffering as a steak? And you know how we try to get them to start with one day a week (or maybe one meal) that is animal free? Well, that’s what this group is doing. It’s like HSUS, I suppose, or another animal welfare group that encourages cage-free eggs and "humanely-raised meats".
Here’s the problem with that, that is becoming more evident than ever, and I write this with the most sincere intention and it’s heartbreaking in its reality: Convincing people that there is such a thing as "humane slaughter" is making people go back to meat eating or not stop in the first place. It’s backfiring. It is by no means a step toward vegetarianism or veganism.
Take a gander at an article Roger Yates directed me to from last week, starring none other than the Niman Ranch and taking direction from my nemesis, Michael Pollan, called "Back in Rack." Then of course there’s the Canadian news show that some of you refused to even listen to because of the way the topic was treated (according to yours truly). And we see print and radio material like this more and more frequently.
Here’s the last section of "Back in Rack." It’s oh-so cleverly entitled, "What’s at Steak."
So given the increasing availability of small-farm-pastured, sustainably produced meat, are former vegetarians turning into omnivores?
"For sure," says farmer Dunlop, himself a vegetarian for a dozen years. "I was in the same boat when I was in school, and did homework on factory farms and saw the suffering, the incredible stress that these animals undergo," he recalls. "But I started eating meat again once I began raising my pigs."
Chef Sims doesn’t keep statistics, but he does have the kind of anecdotal evidence that confirms Dunlop’s hunch. "Once I started putting Niman Ranch, humanely raised meat on our menu a year ago," says Sims, "two friends of mine, both vegetarians for over 17 years, started eating meat again at our restaurant."
And for the CEO of Niman Ranch, the numbers support a resurgence of thoughtful meat-eating.
"Our company grew 26 percent last year," Swain notes. "And not just in the Bay Area."
What I would like to see is a peer-reviewed study, don’t ask me by whom but some independent body of some sort, about vegans and vegetarians who go back to eating animals, and vegetarians who don’t go vegan because they have bought the idea that they can get their eggs and dairy products in a way that doesn’t involve the disrespect, dominance and slaughter of sentient beings. That’s the thing we’re missing.
People–and remember that I was one of them–who believe that changing your buying habits and purchasing slightly-less-hideously-cruel animal products will lead to veganism are, as I was, not being realistic. That’s not how it works. What leads to veganism is the realization that we don’t have the right to use animals for food and there is simply no way–no way–to humanely slaughter anyone. Therefore, no amount of rigging of the system will satisfy the requirement of humane.
I would like to see a study of the reasons for leaving vegetarianism/veganism. I'm quite sure the "happy" meat is not the reason, just the excuse to leave an uncomfortable lifestyle. The question if it's social pressure, unhealth or other reasons that cause people to abandon veg*ism? The answer to that question should guide our actions to prevent it from happening.
"The wrongness of killing a being is more complicated. I have kept, and shall continue to keep, the question of killing in the background because in the present state of human tyranny over other species the more simple, straightforward principle of equal consideration of pain or pleasure is a sufficient basis for identifying and protesting against all the major abuses of animals that human beings practice."
"In general, though, the question of when it is wrong to kill (painlessly) an animal is one to which we need give no precise answer."
"If one is opposed to inflicting suffering on animals, but not to the painless killing of animals, one could consistently eat animals who had lived free of all suffering and been instantly, painlessly slaughtered."
"So we must ask ourselves, not: Is it ever right to eat meat? but: Is it right to eat this meat?"
all Peter Singer, all in "Animal Liberation"
Considering the above, I would suggest that the seeds of the current conundrum were actually planted by our patriarch, decades ago. Today, he continues fanning the "new welfarist"/"happy meat" flames with ongoing anti-vegan rhetoric and enthusiastic support for merely tinkering with our relationship with non-humans… but the book ("Animal Liberation") that has been providing normative guidance for a "movement" (read: disaster) for many years now, helped start the fire.
When so many of Peter's arguments strictly center around "meat" and factory farming, are couched in contingencies like suffering-free exploitation and painless murder, and when the underlying philosophy (utilitarianism) is goal based and all about striving to maximize states of affairs — meaning that it eschews any sense of an obligation to protect someone's interests regardless of consequences (which is the essence of rights theory)… the outcomes we have been seeing should not be terribly surprising. None of the body parts being sold are those of individuals who lived free of suffering, or were murdered without pain, but utilitarian calculus is very compatible with the pursuit of marginal improvements.
We are deeply entrenched in the mind-state that views non-humans instrumentally (as little more than means to human ends). There is a massive unbridgeable chasm separating those who unequivocally reject the instrumentalist paradigm (vegans that support basic *rights* for non-humans, and ultimately seek abolition) from those who equivocate hard, send highly confusing messages, and support efforts that reinforce the status of non-humans as our instruments ("compassionate carnivores", "happy meat" eaters, PeTA, HSUS, COK, Peter Singer, Eric Marcus, John Mackey, Michael Pollan, et cetera). Unfortunately, the second camp is larger, and filled with highly visible "animal people" who appear to represent or advocate a path for onlookers to discharge their moral obligation to non-humans. Of course, the only sensible way to actually do that, is by rejecting all use, irrespective of how "humane" or "compassionate" the treatment is claimed to be. But, camp two does not (cannot) guide many people in this direction, because adjusting treatment is their "bread and butter".
I guess as a sociologist I'm in the right business to conduct the survey Fredrik suggests. I agree that the reasons may be mixed, although I would expect the availability of 'happy meat' to be influential for many vegetarians. We have to accept that vegetarians are an interesting group in relation to the theory of animal rights: one might say that long-term vegetarianism is pretty-much a rejection of AR philosophy.
We get a little clue in this from the piece above: "I was in the same boat when I was in school, and did homework on factory farms and saw the suffering, the incredible stress that these animals undergo".
Now, I think that Mary will confirm that no-one merely sees suffering and stress; rather they are part of the processes by which this and that is/becomes characterised (in my terms, socially constructed) as suffering and stressful. And so, the fundamental claims-making of the animal protection movement plays a role. Since the animal movement tends to avoid using rights language, except in headlines and titles, its language is in the main welfarist – it talks about cruelty and suffering, "unnecessary" suffering often – the cornerstone concept of orthodox animal welfarism.
Therefore, it is no surprise that this guy 'sees' suffering and stress rather than rights violations. I personally believe that seeing and recognising the latter give us strong reasons to object to the practice in question – AND it gives us a critical eye even when the system of use in question is altered and made, we are told, "more humane".
RY.
Additionally, I would like to stress that I feel absolutely no affinity whatsoever with vegetarians. I think there are serious problems with anything that associates vegetarianism with veganism, ties them together, or suggests in anyway that vegetarianism is desirable or positive. Without any contextual details, the notion of abandoning vegetarianism does not phase me at all. Let's review:
1) Vegetarianism is a diet with the following guidance: don't eat "meat" (often only that from certain species). Therefore, best case, it only goes one-third of the way to expunge morally odious consumption behaviors, and leaves aside all other questions of non-human use. Vegetarians might eat fewer foods derived from other animals overall, relative to their habits as a "meat" eater, or they might not. Many vegetarians merely increase their consumption of bird eggs and non-human milk after they eliminate "meat".
2) Veganism is not a diet. Rather, it is the principled commitment to reject all non-human exploitation, and the lifestyle thereby entailed.
I have to thank Nathan for his comment: "Veganism is not a diet. Rather it is a principled commitment to reject all non-human exploitation and the lifestyle thereby entailed."
I have been struggling with articulating that thought. Today, for example, I organized a meeting with a large group of people from another office for whom I had to arrange lunch. I chose to get it catered from a local vegan place. I was not about to purchase any dead animals to accommodate their gustatory preferences. Colleagues in my office thought that I should provide something that our guests would prefer to eat, i.e.: meat. (Of course, when I go to their office, I always bring my own lunch, as they offer nothing that I will eat.) I kept thinking, "Barring any allergies, there is nothing in vegan food that our guests could have any objection to eating. Why should I be expected to go against my morals as to purchase animal products for others?" It is that so many believe that veganism is a dietary choice which is why they don't get it.
Thank you, Nathan. And thanks, Mary.
PS: Lunch was fabulous and everybody went back for seconds. I was sure to hand out business cards!