Carnism as compared to Statism
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:32 pm
While reviewing the work of Melanie Joy, I was struck by the parallels between carnism (beliefs that support the eating of animal flesh) and statism (beliefs that support the existence of government). I will share some of these ideas here…
Carnism is described as a belief system that creates a gap in our thinking, inhibiting our free choice about an impactful social justice issue. This gap is largely due to our seeing carnism as a given. We experience it as ubiquitously accepted since the time of our birth, and though we may often witness or participate in discussions about the choices made within that framework, we rarely (if ever) hear discussions about that framework (whether or not the concept itself is appropriate). The comparisons here are fairly clear, but they will become more so as we go deeper.
We do not make the connection between the food on our plate, and the animal that was sacrificed to make that meal possible. Likewise, the services that government provides are often described as “free”, without a conscious connection being made to the fact that others have worked and had the fruit of their labor seized in to supply that service. Of course, in both cases, we will readily make the acknowledgement when pressed, but it is not prominent in our general awareness.
Inconsistencies exist between how we think about animal X and animal Y, such that we deem it unthinkable to slaughter and eat a dog, but perfectly reasonable to do so with a pig. Similarly, if I were to rob someone at gunpoint in order to pay for my child’s education, it would be thought of as a heinous act; but “taxation” being used to effect that same end is deemed perfectly acceptable. So if your neighbor does something, it’s wrong, but if a politician or enforcement agent does it, it’s right.
The myths of the belief system are presented as the facts: it’s “normal, natural and necessary”. "Normal" merely means that it represents the prominent belief system – an appeal to popularity or longevity (one would hope that on these forums it need not be explained why this is invalid). "Natural" implies that it is somehow an inherent feature of our species, but if this were true, then why must it leverage obfuscations and justifications in order to make it more palatable?
We balk at having our liberties infringed upon, at having our will to perform benign actions impeded by others, at kidnapping, theft, assault, murder, and all other forms of domination. But through sociopolitical rituals, we pretend to wash these actions clean. Kidnapping is now “lawful arrest”. Theft is now “taxation”. Murder is now “casualties of war”. If this is natural, why can we not bear to see it as it is, without having to euphemize or perform complex legal actions in order to justify it?
Necessity is clearly not present. We do not need government to survive. Governments did not exist for the majority of human history. There were elders and tribal leaders, but a leader is not a ruler. The former inspires assent through skill or knowledge, while the latter demands it by force. Water is a necessity. Government is not. And yet, this argument is made more often than any other – even among those who recognize government as an "evil".
It is a belief system of domination and subjugation, privilege and oppression. Be it “milk cows” or “taxpayers”, someone is turned into something in an effort to remove us from the fact that we are imposing upon the life of an individual conscious being. It’s a “might makes right” mentality – an ideology of violence.
Those who stand in opposition to this degrading influence in our world are labelled “extremist”, “sensationalist”, “biased”, or even "insane". They are shunned, their ideas are ridiculed, and the validity of their position is diminished, or denied outright without due consideration.
All of these ideas come directly from Melanie Joy’s “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows” and is merely the tip of the iceberg. Replace “carnism” with “statism” and at least 75% of everything she says applies directly.
Carnism is described as a belief system that creates a gap in our thinking, inhibiting our free choice about an impactful social justice issue. This gap is largely due to our seeing carnism as a given. We experience it as ubiquitously accepted since the time of our birth, and though we may often witness or participate in discussions about the choices made within that framework, we rarely (if ever) hear discussions about that framework (whether or not the concept itself is appropriate). The comparisons here are fairly clear, but they will become more so as we go deeper.
We do not make the connection between the food on our plate, and the animal that was sacrificed to make that meal possible. Likewise, the services that government provides are often described as “free”, without a conscious connection being made to the fact that others have worked and had the fruit of their labor seized in to supply that service. Of course, in both cases, we will readily make the acknowledgement when pressed, but it is not prominent in our general awareness.
Inconsistencies exist between how we think about animal X and animal Y, such that we deem it unthinkable to slaughter and eat a dog, but perfectly reasonable to do so with a pig. Similarly, if I were to rob someone at gunpoint in order to pay for my child’s education, it would be thought of as a heinous act; but “taxation” being used to effect that same end is deemed perfectly acceptable. So if your neighbor does something, it’s wrong, but if a politician or enforcement agent does it, it’s right.
The myths of the belief system are presented as the facts: it’s “normal, natural and necessary”. "Normal" merely means that it represents the prominent belief system – an appeal to popularity or longevity (one would hope that on these forums it need not be explained why this is invalid). "Natural" implies that it is somehow an inherent feature of our species, but if this were true, then why must it leverage obfuscations and justifications in order to make it more palatable?
We balk at having our liberties infringed upon, at having our will to perform benign actions impeded by others, at kidnapping, theft, assault, murder, and all other forms of domination. But through sociopolitical rituals, we pretend to wash these actions clean. Kidnapping is now “lawful arrest”. Theft is now “taxation”. Murder is now “casualties of war”. If this is natural, why can we not bear to see it as it is, without having to euphemize or perform complex legal actions in order to justify it?
Necessity is clearly not present. We do not need government to survive. Governments did not exist for the majority of human history. There were elders and tribal leaders, but a leader is not a ruler. The former inspires assent through skill or knowledge, while the latter demands it by force. Water is a necessity. Government is not. And yet, this argument is made more often than any other – even among those who recognize government as an "evil".
It is a belief system of domination and subjugation, privilege and oppression. Be it “milk cows” or “taxpayers”, someone is turned into something in an effort to remove us from the fact that we are imposing upon the life of an individual conscious being. It’s a “might makes right” mentality – an ideology of violence.
Those who stand in opposition to this degrading influence in our world are labelled “extremist”, “sensationalist”, “biased”, or even "insane". They are shunned, their ideas are ridiculed, and the validity of their position is diminished, or denied outright without due consideration.
All of these ideas come directly from Melanie Joy’s “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows” and is merely the tip of the iceberg. Replace “carnism” with “statism” and at least 75% of everything she says applies directly.