Beyond Carnism - FAQ
An Animal Rights Article from All-Creatures.org

FROM

Carnism Awareness & Action Network
September 2016

Technically, carnism is the “opposite” of veganism (“carn” means “flesh” or “of the flesh”) but in many ways it is an opposing belief system to both vegetarianism and veganism.

Is carnism the opposite of vegetarianism?

Technically, carnism is the “opposite” of veganism (“carn” means “flesh” or “of the flesh”) but in many ways it is an opposing belief system to both vegetarianism and veganism.

Carnism reflects a particular way of thinking about and relating to ourselves, animals, and our food. When we are “meat eaters” we think of ourselves as part of the norm, the social majority. We are members of the dominant culture, a culture in which the ethics and legitimacy of eating animals are not questioned and meat consumption is imbued with positive meanings (e.g., meat makes a body strong; meat is a celebratory centerpiece, such as the Thanksgiving turkey, etc.).

(Ethical) vegetarians and vegans belong to subcultures that are defined entirely by the conscious choice not to consume animals or parts of animals. Both vegetarians and vegans have examined the ethics and legitimacy of eating animals and have redefined how they see themselves in relation to the rest of the animal world. Both also tend to identify as ideological minorities in the dominant, meat-eating culture. Although vegetarians continue to eat eggs and/or dairy, unlike those who eat meat, vegetarians do not define themselves by what they do eat, but by what they do not eat. The vegetarian subculture isn’t organized around eating eggs and dairy; it is organized around not eating meat, and practicing compassion toward animals. Thus, while there are some distinct differences between vegetarianism and veganism, there is a much greater difference between carnism and vegetarianism.

It is useful to think of these ideologies on a continuum, with carnism on one end and veganism on the other. Most people fall somewhere along the spectrum, utilizing varying degrees of carnistic defenses. Eating any animal products causes harm to animals and therefore likely requires the kinds of defenses and distortions that block our feelings of disgust; so, for instance, just as carnists may be disgusted by the idea of eating dogs, vegetarians may be disgusted by the idea of eating eggs from turtles or pigeons or drinking milk from a rat or gorilla. Thus, vegetarianism, though quite different from carnism, is not its “pure opposite.”

If I eat meat from animals that were humanely raised and killed, am I still supporting carnism?

One way to answer this question is to substitute a dog for a typical farmed animal: Would you be comfortable eating the meat from a golden retriever who had been raised and killed in the circumstances you describe - who had been given life for the sole purpose of being killed? Would you consider it humane to slaughter a perfectly healthy dog for no reason other than because someone likes the way he or she tastes?

Moreover, so-called humanely produced meat is a myth, a marketing strategy designed to offset consumers’ growing discomfort with eating animals as more of the truth about meat production reaches the public. We can consider the “humane myth” simply another carnistic justification, as it is virtually impossible to raise and kill an animal humanely, let alone multiple animals at a time; the “humane” animal products that make it to your supermarket are, invariably, products of misery.

What is the difference between speciesism and carnism?

Speciesism is the belief system, or ideology, in which it’s considered appropriate to value some animals over others (with humans at the top of the hierarchy) for reasons of species alone. Carnism is the ideology in which it’s considered appropriate to eat some of the animals on the lower rungs of the speciesist hierarchy. Carnism is a “sub-ideology” of speciesism, just as anti-Semitism, for instance, is a sub-ideology of racism. Carnism, like anti-Semitism, is a specific expression of a broader ideology.

Some have criticized comparing the suffering of humans (e.g., in slavery, the Holocaust, women's suffrage) with the suffering of animals, even though the systems that enable such suffering are similar in many ways. What are the reasons for this criticism?

One reason is that people are simply unaware of the similar structures of violent ideologies, and of the true horrors of animal exploitation. A more important reason, however, is the prevailing belief system that we have all inherited which makes us regard humans as fundamentally different from and superior to all other animals: human supremacy.

Human supremacy enables us to view nonhuman beings as inferior “others” whose suffering is qualitatively different from human suffering and who are therefore less deserving of moral concern. For example, 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. We rarely, if ever, question our right to complete control of nonhuman animals’ bodies, habitats, lives, and deaths or the unimaginable suffering to which we subject them in order to serve our own interests.

Human privilege is an inevitable consequence of human supremacy. Like other forms of privilege, human privilege is deeply ingrained, largely invisible, and staunchly defended, so we have a vested interest in maintaining our view of nonhuman beings as lesser life forms whose interests are far outweighed by our own. We therefore take offense at any suggestion that humans and nonhumans have an equal capacity to suffer, have an equal desire to live free from harm, have lives that are equally important to them, or deserve equal consideration of their interests.

Of course, no two groups - human or nonhuman - are ever exploited in precisely the same way, so comparisons must always be made carefully and with an awareness of the uniqueness of each group’s experience.

How is carnism similar to other violent ideologies, and why is it important to examine these similarities?

Oppressive ideologies are organized around the dynamics of domination and subjugation, with the group that holds social power exploiting a group of “inferior others” for their own benefit. These ideologies are structured to coerce people into supporting abuses to which they would normally be deeply opposed. Oppressive ideologies therefore rely on defense mechanisms that distort our perceptions, block our awareness, and shut down our empathy. So even though the experience of the victims of oppressive ideologies may differ, there is a striking similarity among the ideologies themselves because the mentality that enables the violence and oppression is the same.

How can I change my diet and stop eating animals?

There are many excellent resources to help you move beyond carnism and toward consuming a plant-based, or vegan, diet. You can find a list of these resources here.

One thing to keep in mind is that carnism exists on a continuum, and most people transition gradually from eating animals to eating plants. So the direction we are heading on the continuum matters perhaps more than where we are currently. Consider “crowding out” animal foods from your diet – adding in more plant-based foods rather than simply cutting out animal-based foods – at a pace that works for you. You may want to commit to eating one vegan meal a day, for example, or one vegan day a week, as you move toward a fully vegan diet and lifestyle. An excellent way to begin your transition is to take a 21-day vegan kickstart, or challenge.

Does carnism exist in all cultures?

Carnism exists among meat-eating cultures in which eating animals is a choice, rather than a necessity. Though the types of animals consumed may differ among such cultures, the way people relate to the animals they eat is similar. For instance, in carnistic cultures around the world, people tend to consider only a handful of animals edible – out of millions of species – and they often find the idea of eating “inedible” animals repulsive. And people typically consider their own culture’s choices to be rational and other cultures’ choices offensive and disgusting. Carnism is a social and psychological system that dictates how we experience eating animals, not simply which animals we eat.

Does the concept of carnism apply to people for whom eating animals is a necessity for survival?

The concept of carnism does not fully apply to those who lack the economic means to make their food choices freely, or to those who live in geographic regions where eating animals is necessary for their survival. While some similar defense mechanisms no doubt influence their experience of eating animals, people who are unable to make their food choices freely are not operating in quite the same system as those who can choose not to eat animals, nor are they the focus of Beyond Carnism’s outreach.

As long as animals are classified as legal property, which means their interests are superseded by those of their legal owners, isn't it a waste of time for those concerned about animal rights to focus on carnism?

The concept of carnism does not fully apply to those who lack the economic means to make their food choices freely, or to those who live in geographic regions where eating animals is necessary for their survival. While some similar defense mechanisms no doubt influence their experience of eating animals, people who are unable to make their food choices freely are not operating in quite the same system as those who can choose not to eat animals, nor are they the focus of Beyond Carnism’s outreach.


Read more at Animal Rights Articles
Read more at The Meat and Dairy Industries
Read more at Articles Reflecting a Vegan Lifestyle