What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest

Abstract

Many familial and cultural traditions rely on animals for their fulfillment - think of Christmas ham, Rosh Hashannah chicken soup, Fourth of July barbeques, and so forth. Though philosophers writing in animal ethics often dismiss interests in certain foods as trivial, these food-based traditions pose a significant moral problem for those who take animals’ lives and interests seriously. One must either turn one’s back on one’s community or on the animals. In this paper, I consider the under-theorized area of intra-cultural critique. My focus is how we should think about and seek to resolve inter-animal conflicts of interest that arise within our own communities and cultural or religious groups. How should a theory that takes animals seriously approach a conflict between animals’ interests and culturally important human interests in the context of one’s own cultural, ethnic, or religious group? How, for example, should we think about the person staring down at a bowl of her grandmother’s chicken soup while recognizing the moral impermissibility of slaughtering chickens for human consumption? In contrast to traditional approaches that fail to take these robust, food-based, interests into account, I offer an ecofeminist approach that highlights the importance of respecting animals’ interests while also undertaking the work of moral repair to address damage done to relationships of love and care in the process.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    I use the term “inter-animal” to refer to conflicts of interest involving humans and animals. “Inter-species” conflicts is less cumbersome, but I want to differentiate between conflicts of interest involving humans and nonhuman nature (as between humans and plants) from conflicts involving humans and nonhuman animals. By “inter-animal” conflicts of interest I mean only conflicts between human and nonhuman animals and not conflicts between nonhuman animals (e.g., lions preying on gazelles).

  2. 2.

    In Emmerman 2012 I critique the prioritization schemes offered by Peter Singer, Paul Taylor, and Gary Varner. Tom Regan also takes up the issue of priority in Regan 1983. See also VanDeVeer 1979.

  3. 3.

    Cf., Singer 1972.

  4. 4.

    For descriptions of the lives of factory farmed chickens see Baur 2008:147–166; Masson 2003:55–95; and Singer and Mason 2006.

  5. 5.

    Richard Twine (2016) highlights the various ways food intersects with other life practices.

  6. 6.

    There is an extensive literature on this tension as it manifests in the inter-human realm with respect to the obligations of affluent people to the global poor. There the tension plays out in terms of the apparently strong obligations affluent people have to alleviate the horrible suffering of the world’s poorest inhabitants and the importance of leading a flourishing human life.

  7. 7.

    Posthumanism has many variations, but in general is best understood as a response to Enlightenment humanist thinking. Posthumanism questions, among other things, human superiority and human exceptionalism (Abrell 2018).

  8. 8.

    By “moral remainder” I mean “some genuine moral demands which, because their fulfillment conflicted with other genuine more demands, are ‘left over’ in episodes of moral choice, and yet are not just nullified,” (Walker 1989:21).

  9. 9.

    The approach is ecofeminist in many ways. It emphasizes themes brought forth in feminist work regarding the moral relevancy of issues connected to inter-personal relationships of love and care, the importance of context in moral deliberation, and emphasizing how emotion can and must play a role in morality alongside reason (Donovan 1993; Gaard 2002; Gilligan 1982; Gruen 1991, 1993, 2004; Held 1995; Luke 1995, 2007; Kheel 1985, 1993; Slicer 1991; and Walker 1989, 1995). The approach also insists on the importance of first person narrative as a source of information in moral deliberation (Lugones and Spelman 1983; Warren 1990). Finally, the approach politicizes the ethics of care (Curtin 1991; Donovan 2007:187–189; Donovan and Adams 2007:3). This includes recognizing the role of inter-locking oppressions in shaping our interests and the choices available to us when conflicts occur.

  10. 10.

    See Jones 2004, Davis 2012, and Marino 2017 for more about the complex social lives of chickens.

  11. 11.

    Cf., Twine’s discussion of the vegan killjoy (Twine 2014).

  12. 12.

    Cf., Bishop 1987 and Walker 1989, 1995 for discussions of how in meeting our moral obligations in one area we might act wrongly in others.

  13. 13.

    Adams 2010, Kheel 2004, and Gruen 1993 examine the role of gender in meat-based cultural practices.

  14. 14.

    See Virginia Held’s discussion of the moral elements of relationships (Held 1995: 160).

  15. 15.

    This may sound dramatic, but those of us who have turned our backs on the foods that contribute to cultural or religious identity know the depth of the problem here. In some cases, family gatherings fracture and relationships are compromised. See Jonathan Safran Foer’s discussion of table fellowship for more on the importance of gathering around food to families and communities (Safran Foer 2007).

  16. 16.

    Grant and MacKenzie-Dale’s discussion Lisa Simpson and Darlene Connor as vegan-feminist killjoys helps highlight the inter-personal phenomenon here (Grant and MacKenzie-Dale 2016).

  17. 17.

    See Lori Gruen’s discussion of resentment and when it is and is not legitimate in the inter-cultural conflict setting (Gruen 2001).

  18. 18.

    Some of this resentment might be deserved. As a young convert to vegetarianism, I admit, I would moo at the table while my family ate their brisket. Deane Curtin reminds us that veganism is a moral direction rather than a moral state (Curtin 1992: 131). If vegans in general were less smug about their moral superiority and better equipped to understand that even veganism is not cruelty free, these issues of resentment might dissipate. (I first heard the expression “veganism is not cruelty free” from vegan food justice activist lauren Ornelas.)

  19. 19.

    See Bailey 2007: 51–55 for a discussion of feminist vegetarianism and elitism.

  20. 20.

    Many vegans experience alienation from our families and communities. Twine’s sociological research on transition to veganism provides empirical backing for this felt experience (Twine 2014, 2016).

  21. 21.

    I owe this point to a participant in the Wesleyan University “Sex, Gender, Species” conference.

  22. 22.

    A participant at the Wesleyan University “Sex, Gender, Species” Conference raised this important point. The obligations to one another run both ways. Something disrespectful happens when my grandmother consistently puts chicken soup in front of me even though I am a vegetarian. This is important, but it is also worth recognizing that the likely scenario here is one where my grandmother must make a vegetarian soup for me in addition to the chicken soup she is making for the rest of the family. My commitment to vegetarianism puts an added burden on her. While I could make the soup, my grandmother never would have allowed that when I adopted vegetarianism at 13 years old. Children providing their own food was antithetical to her understanding of the right ordering of things. Carol J. Adams suggests that bringing one’s own vegan food to gatherings is an important part of self-care and managing the social and relational complexities of living as a vegan (Adams 2009). I agree with Adams but note that bringing one’s own food may not work in certain cultural or familial groups depending on the norms and traditions.

  23. 23.

    Marilyn Friedman talks about the importance of using inter-subjectivity to avoid bias in moral decision-making (Friedman 1989). Dialogue will be useful in undertaking inter-subjective reflection on the work of moral repair.

  24. 24.

    This movement is known as Hekhsher Tzedek.

  25. 25.

    See Safran Foer’s discussion of how Thanksgiving dinner might be enhanced without the traditional roasted turkey (Safran Foer 2007: 249–257). For more on the possibility of shifting traditions see Twine 2016 and Ciochetti 2012

  26. 26.

    My family may not care what Ethiopian Jewish grandmothers feed their families. They care that in our family we eat chicken soup and the chicken soup is what my grandmother fed my mother and so on all the way back to the shtetls of Poland. Therefore, my appeal to the multicultural nature of Judaism may require time to take root.

References

  1. Abrell E (2018) Defining posthumanism. ASI’s Defining human-animal studies 18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiuU287BD0Y. Accessed 7 September 2018

  2. Adams CJ (2009) Living among meat eaters: the vegetarians survival handbook. In: 2nd end. Lantern Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Adams CJ (2010) The sexual politics of meat: a feminist-vegetarian critical theory. In: 20th anniversary edn. Continuum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bailey C (2007) We are what we eat: feminist vegetarianism and the reproduction of racial identity. Hypatia 22:39–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baur G (2008) Farm sanctuary: changing hearts and minds about animals and food. Touchstone, New York

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bishop S (1987) Connections and guilt. Hypatia 2:7–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ciochetti C (2012) Veganism and living well. J Agric Environ Ethics 25:405–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Curtin D (1991) Toward an ecological ethic of care. Hypatia 6:60–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Curtin D (1992) Recipes for values. In: Curtin D, Heldke LM (eds) Cooking, eating, thinking: transformative philosophies of food. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, pp 123–144

    Google Scholar 

  10. Davis K (2012) The mental life of chickens as observed through their social relationships. In: Smith JA, Mitchell RW (eds) Experiencing animal minds: an anthology of animal-human encounters. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 13–29

    Google Scholar 

  11. Deckha M (2012) Towards a postcolonial, posthumanist feminist theory: centralizing race and culture in feminist work on nonhuman animals. Hypatia 22:527–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Donovan J (1993) Animal rights and feminist theory. In: Gaard G (ed) Ecofeminism: women, animals, nature. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, pp 167–194

    Google Scholar 

  13. Donovan J (2007) Attention to suffering: sympathy as a basis for ethical treatment of animals. In Donovan J, Adams CJ (eds) The feminist care tradition in animal ethics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 174–197. First published in Journal of Social Philosophy 27, no. 1 (1996)

  14. Donovan J, Adams CJ (2007) Introduction. In: Donovan J, Adams CJ (eds) The feminist care tradition in animal ethics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  15. Emmerman K (2012) Beyond the basic/nonbasic interests distinction: a feminist approach to inter-species moral conflict and moral repair. Phd Diss. In: University of Washington

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fisher L (2011) Freeing feathered spirits. In: Kemmerer L (ed) Sister species: women, animals, and social justice. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp 110–116

    Google Scholar 

  17. Foer JS (2009) Eating animals. Little. Brown and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Freedman SG (2007) Rabbi’s campaign for kosher standards expands to include call for social justice. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/us/19religion.html. Accessed 14 February 2018

  19. Friedman M (1989) The impracticality of impartiality. J Philos 86:645–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gaard G (2001) Tools for a cross-cultural feminist ethics: ethical context and contents in the Makah whale hunt. Hypatia 16:1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gaard G (2002) Vegetarian ecofeminism: a review essay. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 23:117–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gilligan C (1982) In a difference voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  23. Grant J, MacKenzie-Dale B (2016) Lisa Simpson and Darlene Connor: television’s favourite killjoys in Castricano J and Simonsen RR (eds) critical perspectives on veganism. Palgrave Macmillan, Switzerland, pp 307–328

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gruen L (1991) Animals. In: Singer P (ed) A companion to ethics, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp 343–353

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gruen L (1993) Dismantling oppression: an analysis of the connection between women and animals. In: Gaard G (ed) Ecofeminism: women, animals, nature. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, pp 60–90

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gruen L (1999) Must utilitarians be impartial? In: Jamieson D (ed) Singer and his critics. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA, pp 129–149

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gruen L (2004) Empathy and vegetarian commitments. In: Sapontzis F (ed) Food for thought. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, pp 284–292

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hawkins R (2001) Cultural whaling, commodification, and culture change. Environ Ethics 23:287–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Held V (1995) Feminist moral inquiry and the feminist future. In: Held V (ed) Justice and care: essential readings in feminist ethics. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp 153–178

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Hogan L (1996) Silencing tribal grandmothers: traditions, old values at heart of Makah’s class over whaling. The Seattle Times. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19961215&slug=2365045. Accessed 21 November 2018

  31. Horiuchi M (2017) Decolonizing veganism: a Japanese perspective. Unpublished senior thesis. In: University of Washington

  32. Jones P (2004) Crossing the mammalian-avian line. Satya. http://www.satyamag.com/nov04/jones.html. Accessed 6 September 2018

  33. Kheel M (1985) The liberation of nature: a circular affair. Environ Ethics 7:135–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kheel M (1993) From heroic to holistic ethics: the ecofeminist challenge. In: Gaard G (ed) Ecofeminism: women, animals, nature. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, pp 243–271

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kheel M (2004) Vegetarianism and ecofeminism: toppling patriarchy with a fork. In: Sapontzis SF (ed) Food for thought: the debate over eating meat. Prometheus Books, New York, pp 327–341

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kim CJ (2015) Dangerous crossings: race, species, and nature in a multicultural age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. Lugones MC, Spelman EV (1983) Have we got a theory for you! Feminist theory, cultural imperialism and the demand for the ‘woman’s voice. Women's Stud Int Forum 6:573–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Luke B (1995) Taming ourselves or going feral? Toward a nonpatriarchal metaethic of animal liberation. In: Adams CJ, Donovan J (eds) Animals and women: feminist theoretical explorations, 3rd edn. Duke University Press, Durham, NC, pp 290–319

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Luke B (2007) Justice, caring, and animal liberation. In: Donovan J, Adams CJ (eds) The feminist care tradition in animal ethics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 125–152

    Google Scholar 

  40. Marino L (2017) Thinking chickens: a review of cognition, emotion, and behavior in the domestic chicken. Anim Cogn 20:127–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Masson JM (2003) The pig who sang to the moon: the emotional world of farm animals. Ballantine Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  42. Preston J (2008) Kosher plant is accused of inhumane slaughter. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/us/05immig.html. Accessed 14 February 2018

  43. Regan T (1983) The case for animal rights. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  44. Robinson M (2013) Veganism and Mi’Kmaq legends. Can J Nativ Stud 33:189–196

    Google Scholar 

  45. Safran Foer J (2007) Eating animals. Little Brown and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sameth M (2011) “I’ll have what she’s having” Jewish ethical eating. In: Zamore ML (ed) The sacred table: creating a jewish food ethic. CCAR Press, New York, pp 225–234

    Google Scholar 

  47. Shafran A (2012) When tzedek isn’t: the conservative movement finds a cause. Cross Currents. https://cross-currents.com/2012/02/17/when-tzedek-isnt-the-conservative-movement-finds-a-cause/. Accessed 15 February 2018

  48. Shapiro SM (2008) Kosher wars. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12kosher-t.html. Accessed 14 February 2018

  49. Singer P (1972) Famine, affluence, and morality. Philos Public Aff 1:229–243

    Google Scholar 

  50. Singer P (1979) Practical ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  51. Singer P (1989) All animals are equal. In: Regan T, Singer P (eds) Animal rights and human obligations, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp 73–86

    Google Scholar 

  52. Singer P (1990) Animal liberation, revised edn. Avon Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  53. Singer P, Mason J (eds) (2006) The ethics of what we eat: why our food choices matter. Rodale, United States

    Google Scholar 

  54. Slicer S (1991) Your daughter or your dog: a feminist assessment of the animal research issue. Hypatia 6:108–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Taylor PW (1986) Respect for nature. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  56. Twine R (2014) Vegan killjoys at the table – contesting happiness and negotiating relationships with food practices. Societies 4:623–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Twine R (2016) Negotiating social relationships in the transition to vegan eating practices. In: Potts A (ed) Meat Culture. Brill, Boston, pp 243–263

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  58. VanDeVeer D (1979) Interspecific justice. Inquiry 22:55–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Varner G (2012) Personhood, ethics, and animal cognition: situating animals in Hare’s two-level utilitarianism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. Vitello P (2008) Label says kosher: ethics suggest otherwise. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/nyregion/11kosher.html. Accessed 14 February 2018

  61. Walker MU (1989) What does the different voice say?: Gilligan’s women and moral philosophy. J Value Inq 23:123–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Walker MU (1995) Moral understandings: alternative ‘epistemology’ for a feminist ethics. In Held V (ed) justice and care: essential readings in feminist ethics. Westview press, Boulder, CO, pp 139-152. First published in Hypatia 4, no 2(1989):15–28

  63. Walker MU (2006) Moral repair: reconstructing moral relations after wrongdoing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  64. Warren KJ (1990) The power and the promise of ecological feminism. Environ Ethics 12:125–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank numerous friends and colleagues at the University of Washington who have thought along with me about this topic over time. I am grateful to the organizers and participants of the April 2018 Kline Workshop at the University of Missouri for thoughtful discussion of this paper in its earlier iteration, particularly Asia Ferrin and Bob Fischer. I also thank two anonymous reviewers for Ethical Theory and Moral Practice for their helpful feedback.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen S. Emmerman.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Emmerman, K.S. What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 22, 77–91 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Animals
  • Ecofeminism
  • Veganism
  • Foodways
  • Basic interests
  • Nonbasic interests
  • Conflicts of interest
  • Moral repair, culture, gender, intersectional veganism, Jewish vegetarianism