Advertisement

Putting Meat on the (Classroom) Table: Problems of Denial and Communication

  • Robert G. Darst
  • Jane I. Dawson
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Education and the Environment book series (PSEE)

Abstract

Animal agriculture (including dairy) is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, after energy use by buildings. Animal agriculture is also a major source of air, soil, and water pollution, as well as animal suffering. Yet efforts to raise these issues in the classroom are hampered by the “meat paradox”: most people who like to eat meat do not like to harm animals, especially animals with minds and feelings. The resulting cognitive dissonance is typically resolved by a combination of denial and stigmatization of those who question the cultural dominance of meat consumption—a response similar to that of climate change deniers. Studies of what does and does not work in climate change communication offer valuable insights for educators interested in exploring the negative consequences of industrialized meat production: emphasize local impacts, co-benefits, and shared community values; avoid moral reproach; frame the issue to engage multiple values. If the educator’s goal is to explore the morality of meat consumption itself, however, these bridge-building techniques may founder upon the fundamental and ultimately irreconcilable philosophical gulf between those who believe that it is morally acceptable to breed and slaughter animals for food and those who believe that it is not.

References

  1. Bastian, B. (2011, March 23). The meat paradox: How we can love some animals and eat others. The Conversation. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/the-meat-paradox-how-we-can-love-some-animals-and-eat-others-149
  2. Bastian, B., & Loughnan, S. (2017). Resolving the meat-paradox: A motivational account of morally troublesome behavior and its maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 278–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. R. M. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohm, I., Lindblom, C., Åbacka, G., Bengs, C., & Hörnell, A. (2015). “He just has to like ham”—The centrality of meat in home and consumer studies. Appetite, 95, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S., & Bastian, B. (2011). The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite, 57, 193–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED). (2009). The psychology of climate change communication: A guide for scientists, journalists, educators, political aides, and the interested public. New York, NY: Center for Research on Environmental Decisions.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, S. (2001). States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Darst, R. G., & Dawson, J. I. (forthcoming). Exit, voice, and denial: Confronting the factory farm in the United States. Society & Animals.Google Scholar
  9. Dinker, K. G., & Pedersen, H. (2016). Critical animal pedagogies: Re-learning our relations with animal others. In H. E. Lees & N. Noddings (Eds.), Palgrave international handbook of alternative education (pp. 415–430). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elliott, C. (2014). Food as people: Teenagers’ perspectives on food personalities and implications for healthy eating. Social Science & Medicine, 121, 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. FAO. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
  12. FAO. (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
  13. Graça, J., Oliveira, A., & Calheiros, M. M. (2015). Meat, beyond the plate. Data-driven hypotheses for understanding consumer willingness to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite, 90, 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jabs, J., Sobal, J., & Devine, C. M. (2000). Managing vegetarianism: Identities, norms, and interactions. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 39, 375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kulick, R. (2017). Teaching about meat: Socializing forces in our media-saturated fast food nation. Report submitted to the Office of Faculty Development, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. North Dartmouth, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Macdiarmid, J. I., Douglas, F., & Campbell, J. (2016). Eating like there’s no tomorrow: Public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite, 96, 487–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marshall, G. (2014). Don’t even think about it: Why our brains are wired to ignore climate change. New York, NY/London, UK: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  19. Minson, J. A., & Monin, B. (2012). Do-gooder derogation: Disparaging morally motivated minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 200–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Norgaard, K. M. (2009). Cognitive and behavioral challenges in responding to climate change. Background paper prepared for the World Development Report 2010. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4940.Google Scholar
  21. Norgaard, K. M. (2011). Living in denial: Climate change, emotions, and everyday life. Cambridge, MA/London, UK: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  23. Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. (2008). Putting meat on the table: Industrial farm animal production in America. Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Trusts.Google Scholar
  24. Piazza, J., Ruby, M. B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H. M., & Seigerman, M. (2015). Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pohjolainen, P., Tapio, P., Vinnari, M., Jokinen, P., & Räsänen, P. (2016). Consumer consciousness on meat and the environment—Exploring differences. Appetite, 101, 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rice, S. (2013). Three educational problems: The case of eating animals. Journal of Thought, 48, 112–127.Google Scholar
  27. Rogers, R. A. (2008). Beasts, burgers, and Hummers: Meat and the crisis of masculinity in contemporary television advertisements. Environmental Communication, 2, 281–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 363–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rothgerber, H. (2014). Efforts to reduce vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters. Appetite, 79, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rothgerber, H. (2015). Can you have your mean and eat it too? Conscientious omnivores, vegetarians, and adherence to diet. Appetite, 84, 196–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rowe, B. D. (2012). Food, habit, and the consumption of animals as educational encounter. Philosophy of Education, 210–218. Retrieved from http://m1.cust.educ.ubc.ca/journal/index.php/criticaled/article/view/132
  32. Ruby, M. B., Alvarenga, M. S., Rozin, P., Kirby, T. A., Richer, E., & Rutsztein, G. (2016). Attitudes toward beef and vegetarians in Argentina, Brazil, France, and the USA. Appetite, 96, 546–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining environmental justice: Theories, movements, and nature. Oxford, UK/New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schösler, H., de Boer, J., Boersema, J. J., & Aiking, H. (2015). Meat and masculinity among young Chinese, Turkish and Dutch adults in the Netherlands. Appetite, 89, 152–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Silva, L. (2017). Teaching about meat: Lesson plan and project summary. Report submitted to the Office of Faculty Development, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. North Dartmouth, MA.Google Scholar
  36. Tian, Q., Hilton, D., & Becker, M. (2016). Confronting the meat paradox in different cultural contexts: Reactions among Chinese and French participants. Appetite, 96, 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wibeck, V. (2014). Enhancing learning, communication and public engagement about climate change—Some lessons from recent literature. Environmental Education Research, 20, 387–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wright-Maley, C. (2011). Meet them at the plate: Reflections on the eating of animals and the role of education therein. Critical Education, 2, 1–21.Google Scholar
  39. Zerubavel, E. (2006). The elephant in the room: Silence and denial in everyday life. Oxford, UK/New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Massachusetts DartmouthNorth DartmouthUSA
  2. 2.Government and Environmental Studies DepartmentsConnecticut CollegeNew LondonUSA

Personalised recommendations