FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2271669897> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2271669897 endingPage "35" @default.
• W2271669897 startingPage "30" @default.
• W2271669897 abstract "As a spiritual progressive and a vegan, going out to dinner can be hard sometimes. This is not because of the paucity of vegan options at restaurants—not in the San Francisco Bay Area, anyway. While restaurant menus can sometimes be an obstacle, I consider them a minor inconvenience compared to the deeper issue troubling me at the dinner table: the uncritical carnism that’s all around me. Coined by psychologist Melanie Joy, “carnism” describes an ideology that leads us to consume pigs, chickens, and cows, oblivious to the immense suffering that these beings experience on their way to our plates. We would never condone such violence toward our beloved cats and dogs, whom we recognize as sentient beings with feelings and subjectivities. Yet the ideology of carnism encourages us to overlook the similarities between species (between pigs and dogs, for instance) so that we can participate in a system that turns living beings into objects for our consumption.Carnism leads most people to consider veganism merely a “personal choice”—as opposed to a political response to a corporatized agricultural system that commits systematic atrocities against our animal kin. My dinner companions are generally those who are well attuned to the harmful ideologies of racism, sexism, and classism; they are not afraid to call out these issues when they see them. Why, then, is it so hard to broach the issue of carnism at the table?The social justice community lacks sustained critical discourse about the politics and ethics of consuming animal products. Veganism is often derided as a trendy choice of the privileged, who must consume expensive faux meats and nut milks to sustain themselves. Those of us who raise issues of animal suffering are seen as sanctimonious or as detracting from more pressing issues of human suffering. To be sure, a growing number of food justice activists are articulating links between how we as a society treat animals, treat the earth, and treat the exploited workers who produce our food. Despite these efforts, however, veganism remains rare among progressives, and “carnism” has yet to become a part of our organizing language.I contend that we must begin to take seriously the impact of our food choices on the other sentient beings with whom we share the planet. A spiritually progressive paradigm must challenge the ideology of carnism and help shift our culture toward veganism. Compassion requires us to look at the immense suffering inflicted upon animals for the sake of profit and taste. Political awareness leads us to see how the exploitation and objectification of human and nonhuman animals are linked. And, finally, the survival of our planet depends upon us opening our eyes to the role that animal agriculture plays in catastrophic climate change.Our social movements are often beset with a ‘zero-sum game’ mindset, leading some progressives to believe that concern for the oppression of animals will detract from concern for humans. However, a look at history reveals that the objectification of human life through racism and sexism has always been intertwined with the objectification of animal life through carnism. In The Dreaded Comparison, for instance, Marjorie Spiegel documents how the practices of confining, enslaving, and harming nonhuman animals helped give rise to the very same practices that were used in human chattel slavery. Not only were the same instruments of restraint and punishment used for nonhuman animals and dehumanized humans, but the same psychological mechanisms of numbing, dissociating, and othering were employed by the perpetrators of this abuse. Thus, the practice of torturing nonhuman animals made it both cognitively and materially easier to torture humans.Efforts to end slavery rightly emphasized the humanity of enslaved African Americans. Today, antiracist, feminist, and other activists continue to decry the treatment of women, people of color, and disabled persons “as animals.” However, these efforts leave unquestioned the implicit assumption that animals should be treated “as animals”—that is, with cruelty and disdain. This logic has also helped shore up the notion among oppressed groups that we must assert our domination over animals in order to claim our humanity. Arguing specifically for an African American Christian veganism, theologian and pastor Christopher Carter argues:Along similar lines, ecofeminist Carol Adams challenges women to see how our bodies have been objectified and commodified in ways similar to animal bodies. But she also points out that women’s complaints of being treated “as meat” unwittingly uphold the legitimacy of slaughtering animals for actual meat. Adams’s argument suggests that rather than decrying our own oppression while perpetuating that of animals, feminists must consider the ways in which our plights are connected. For instance, the control and commodification of female animals’ reproductive capacities for eggs and milk is central to the factory farming system, just as the control of women’s reproduction has been central to the creation of patriarchy. Furthermore, the values of power-over, conquest, and consumption that fuel our meat-centric society also perpetuate ideologies that teach men to view women as prey.Ultimately, economic concerns have been the driving forces behind racism, sexism, and carnism. While early human societies did not consider animals to be morally equivalent to humans, they did recognize each animal kingdom as having its own sacred value in the cosmic order. The ever-expanding profit motive of capitalism, however, helped bolster the Cartesian idea that animals were nothing more than soulless machines, undeserving of our ethical consideration. As capitalism has progressed, so has the intensification of large-scale factory farming and its utter disregard for animals’ lived experiences. As spiritual progressives, our critique of sexism, racism, and unrestrained capitalism remains incomplete so far as we fail to see the relationship of these “isms” to our treatment of animals.Similarly, animal rights activists’ work against carnism is incomplete without an analysis of the race, class, and gender hierarchies that shape food production and consumption in the capitalist system. A. Breeze Harper, founder of the Sistah Vegan Project, points out that many vegan organizations will refer to chocolates as “cruelty free” as long as they lack animal products—whether or not child slave labor was involved in producing the cocoa. Thus, an individualistic and consumerist focus on adopting a completely vegan diet can sometimes privilege discussions of the best way to make non-dairy cheese (it seems cashews are the way to go, by the way) over systematic, grassroots efforts to abolish factory farms or provide more accessible plant-based foods in “food deserts”: urban neighborhoods that lack access to supermarkets and to fresh and local food sources.A social movement based on interconnectedness recognizes that efforts to reduce animal suffering will alleviate human suffering, as well. For instance, slaughterhouse workers—low-wage employees who are predominantly people of color—often suffer from a type of PTSD called Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress (PITS). Physical injuries are also endemic among workers, and Human Rights Watch has called meatpacking “the most dangerous factory job in America.” A recent study from the University of Windsor has also suggested that factory farm workers may be more prone to violence against other humans as a result of having to routinely suppress empathy.Capitalism seeks to exploit the seemingly competing interests of different groups: under this logic, humans will be deprived if animals are allowed to thrive. While this logic has some validity in the short-term—a vegan society means no more bacon cheeseburgers—it breaks down when examined from a broad scale or long-term perspective. As the examples above have shown, the harm we do to our animal kin ultimately harms us as well—and this is most apparent in the way that animal agriculture is destroying the planet that sustains us all.While my own turn to veganism initially arose from a concern for animal suffering, any critique of animal agriculture would be incomplete without an analysis of its role in our current ecological crisis. Although Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and other mainstream environmental efforts have ignored or downplayed the impact of animal agriculture, there is a growing awareness that the animals we kill may actually be killing us. The documentary Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret details the following facts:Why, then, are there more public campaigns to address our transportation habits than our eating preferences? Could it be that the ideology of carnism is so entrenched that we will give up our cars before we will our meat? Cowspiracy argues that the meat industries are protected by an unspoken agreement among politicians and donors that criticizing animal agriculture is verboten. This agreement is further upheld by the prevailing carnist ideology that consuming large quantities of animal products is right, healthy, and necessary. It is incumbent on spiritual progressives to question this reigning ideology, reject denialism, and interrogate our own complicity in maintaining a food system that is destroying our beloved planet.Despite their many differences, the world’s spiritual traditions offer resources that can help us resist the commodifying and objectifying logic of capitalism. As spiritual progressives, we’ve drawn upon these teachings to object to wars, the global exploitation of labor, and myriad other oppressions. I contend that we must now use these teachings to also become a prophetic voice for the elimination of the torturous systems that underlie our daily meals.Among the world’s religious traditions, the Eastern paths of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism are well known for advocating a vegetarian diet. Principles of compassion, ahimsa (nonviolence), and the belief that all sentient life is sacred underlie religious vegetarianism. (My choice to be at first vegetarian, then vegan, has been an outgrowth of my Hindu upbringing as well as my study and practice of Buddhism.)These traditions seem removed for most Westerners, however, whose attitudes toward animals are more likely shaped, consciously or unconsciously, by Judaism and Christianity. While these traditions have historically permitted the taking of animal life for food, they do not sanction the confinement and cruelty that pervade modern factory farming systems. Rather, they demand that humans take their responsibilities as stewards of the earth seriously by treating animal life with compassion and care. Writing about Jewish vegetarianism in the July/August 2009 issue of Tikkun, Daniel Brook wrote:Similarly, the Christian Vegetarian Association draws on an understanding of God as compassionate and merciful to reject modern factory farming: “those who consume the products of factory farms are sponsoring violence. What does this say about their faith? Can we profess faith that God is good if we believe that God approves of cruelty to animals?”Islam, too, commands that believers treat animals with compassion. Each animal community is believed to have its own manner of praising Allah, and is therefore dear to Him. Caging animals is prohibited in many Islamic texts, and the Prophet Muhammad said that “whoever is kind to the creatures of God, is kind to himself.”The world’s diverse indigenous religions, meanwhile, have in common a reverence for animal life. While hunting animals for food and clothing was historically necessary for survival (and remains so today in some parts of the world), hunters asked forgiveness for their act and expressed gratitude to the animal’s spirit. In climates where plant life was abundant, meat was eaten rarely. Modern factory farming systems violate the principles of interconnection, reciprocity, and respect that form the basis of human-animal relations in these traditions.To be sure, none of these traditions have been vegan. Even Jainism, a lesser-known religious tradition of India that requires humans to take the utmost care in not hurting even the smallest insect, has historically prohibited meat, eggs, and even honey, but not milk. Traditionally, however, only a cow’s or goat’s excess milk was to be taken, ensuring that their offspring had enough to eat. Recognizing that this is by and large not the way milk is produced in contemporary times, many Jains today are seeking to update the tradition and are transitioning to veganism.In a similar vein, Muslim vegans today see their shift to a plant-based diet as consistent with the Prophet Muhammad’s teachings. Although in his time, ecological conditions made it necessary to eat some meat, the development of halal standards were meant to minimize any unnecessary suffering of animals. Given that today’s halal meat may actually cause more suffering, some Muslims are arguing that the Prophet Muhammad’s command to show mercy toward animals suggests that veganism may be the most ethically and spiritually consistent position.To give a third example, contemporary Indigenous vegans situate their diet within a decolonial framework that resists the exploitation and ecological destruction inherent in modern meat consumption. Indigenous scholar Claudia Serrato, blogger for decolonialfoodforthought.com, writes: “Indigenous Veganism is centered on the clear understanding that as Indigenous People it is our responsibility to nurture and protect the land and our ecological relations. Supporting Confined Animal Feeding Industrial Operations along with their by products do not fulfill this responsibility.”I contend that all of us with a progressive view on spirituality can learn from these faith-based vegans to evolve our traditions in light of our current social, political, and ecological context. Some traditions have sought to make the slaughter of animals for food more humane; others have advocated vegetarianism. Today, however, economic factors render most if not all “humane” farming scarcely less cruel than factory farming, and the production of milk and eggs has become just as harmful to animals as the production of meat. Thus, we must go beyond the food restrictions passed down to us from our spiritual forebears, recognize the interconnected sufferings caused by animal agriculture, and begin to build a strong, interfaith vegan movement.To date, some spiritual progressives have made personal decisions to adopt vegetarian diets; many others have sought to reduce their meat consumption or participate in movements such as “Meatless Monday.” While these efforts are commendable, there are two ways in which we must begin to move beyond them. First, by recognizing the violence inherent in the production of eggs and dairy, we can shift our ideal from vegetarianism to veganism. Second, and most importantly, we must cease to view veganism as merely a personal lifestyle choice and understand it instead as an integral part of tikkun olam, or world repairing. Given the links between the well-being of animals, humans, and the earth, efforts to heal our world that fail to address the harm caused by animal products remain incomplete.Understanding veganism as part of tikkun olam also moves us from individual choice to collective action. Such action can involve efforts to end federal subsidies to meat and dairy industries, ensure access to fresh and affordable plant-based foods in low-income communities, and insist that our spiritual organizations refrain from using animal products. On a deeper level, collective transformation requires that we broaden our paradigms of justice and morality such that they include nonhuman animals. This would require us to bring the concepts of carnism and veganism into the spiritual discourses taking place in churches, temples, mosques, and perhaps most importantly, at dinner tables. Such efforts will bring our progressive movements beyond a focus on “just us” and toward a vision of justice that includes all of earth’s sacred creatures." @default.
• W2271669897 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2271669897 creator A5054714461 @default.
• W2271669897 date "2016-01-01" @default.
• W2271669897 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2271669897 title "Justice for Just Us?" @default.
• W2271669897 doi "https://doi.org/10.1215/08879982-3446879" @default.
• W2271669897 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2271669897 type Work @default.
• W2271669897 sameAs 2271669897 @default.
• W2271669897 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2271669897 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2271669897 hasAuthorship W2271669897A5054714461 @default.
• W2271669897 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W2271669897 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2271669897 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2271669897 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2271669897 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2271669897 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W2271669897 hasConceptScore W2271669897C139621336 @default.
• W2271669897 hasConceptScore W2271669897C144024400 @default.
• W2271669897 hasConceptScore W2271669897C15744967 @default.
• W2271669897 hasConceptScore W2271669897C17744445 @default.
• W2271669897 hasConceptScore W2271669897C199539241 @default.
• W2271669897 hasConceptScore W2271669897C73484699 @default.
• W2271669897 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2271669897 hasLocation W22716698971 @default.
• W2271669897 hasOpenAccess W2271669897 @default.
• W2271669897 hasPrimaryLocation W22716698971 @default.
• W2271669897 hasRelatedWork W1977020820 @default.
• W2271669897 hasRelatedWork W1986330448 @default.
• W2271669897 hasRelatedWork W2621220062 @default.
• W2271669897 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2271669897 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2271669897 hasRelatedWork W2906994094 @default.
• W2271669897 hasRelatedWork W4232957397 @default.
• W2271669897 hasRelatedWork W4252165422 @default.
• W2271669897 hasRelatedWork W52016513 @default.
• W2271669897 hasRelatedWork W576399554 @default.
• W2271669897 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W2271669897 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2271669897 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2271669897 magId "2271669897" @default.
• W2271669897 workType "article" @default.