Meat and the benefits of ambivalence

Abstract

Meat is a troubling subject. On the one hand most humans love to eat it; the world is expected to double its meat consumption within a few decades. On the other hand, this increase also makes many meat related problems get out of hand. In societal debates on meat, meat eaters often appear to be on the wrong side of the moral line. Yet, below the surface of moral polarizations, many people – meat eaters as well as non-meat-eaters – are ambivalent about meat. Ambivalence is unpleasant and it comes with various (subconscious) mechanisms to reduce it, such as strategic ignorance. The result is that attitudes to meat look more unequivocal than they really are. I will discuss some mechanisms of strategic ignorance concerning meat. Attention for ambivalence may enable a more satisfactory understanding of present attitudes to meat than analyses in terms of straightforward attitudes. In addition, a greater appreciation of the plausibility and legitimacy of ambivalent attitudes may counter tendencies of denial and reveal similarities between meat eaters and vegetarians. This in turn may enable a less polarized and more creative societal space for the search for alternatives and solutions. One idea that may help to acknowledge ambivalences on meat is cultured meat, or in vitro meat.

References

  1. Bankier, D. (1996). The Germans and the final solution: public opinion under Nazism. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  2. Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, H. and Radke, H. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38/2: 247–256.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, S. (2001). States of denial. Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Dana, J., Kuang, J. and Weber, R. (2007). Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Economic Theory 33(1): 67–80.Google Scholar
  5. Darwin, C. (2004/1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Penguin, London, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Driessen, C. and Korthals, M. (2012). Pig towers and in vitro meat: disclosing moral worlds by design. Social Studies of Science 42(6): 797–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duve, K. (2011). Anständiges Essen: ein Selbstversuch. Galinai, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  8. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Foer, J.S. (2009). Eating animals. Little, Brown & Co, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Harmon-Jones, E. and Harmon-Jones, C. (2007). Cognitive dissonance theory after 50 years of development. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 38(1): 7–16.Google Scholar
  11. Holm, L. and Møhl, M. (2000). The role of meat eating in everyday food culture: an analysis of an interview study in Copenhagen. Appetite 34: 277–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hopkins, P. and Dacey, A. (2008). Vegetarian meat: could technology save animals and satisfy meat eaters? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21: 579–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaminer, A. (2012). The meat you eat. The winner of our contest on the ethics of eating meat. New York Times, May 3. www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/magazine/the-winner-of-our-contest-on-the-ethics-of-eating-meat.html?_r=0.Google Scholar
  14. Korzen, S. and Lassen, J. (2010). Meat in context. On the relation between perceptions and context. Appetite 54: 274–281.Google Scholar
  15. Loughnan, S., Haslam, N. and Bastian, B. (2010). The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite 55: 156–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Muller, J.F. (2011). Disability, ambivalence and the law. American Journal of Law and Medicine 37: 469–521.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Norgaard, K. (2011). Living in denial. Climate change, emotions and everyday life. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. PETA (2008). In vitro meat press release. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals www.peta.org/features/In-Vitro-Meat-Contest.aspx.Google Scholar
  19. Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature. Why violence has declined. Viking, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Singer, P. (2011/1981). The expanding circle. Ethics, evolution and moral progress. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Steinfeld, H., Gerber,P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. and De Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow, environmental issues and options. Food an Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  22. Tuomisto, H. and Teixeira de Mattos, M. (2011). Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environmental Science and Technology 45(14): 6117–6123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Van Harreveld, F., Van der Pligt, J. and De Liver, Y. (2009). The agony of ambivalence and ways to resolve it: introducing the MAID model. Personality and Social Psychology Review 13: 45–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Welin, S. and Van der Weele, C. (2012). Cultured meat: will it separate us from nature? In: Potthast, T. and Meisch, S. (eds.) Climate change and sustainable development. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  25. Wirzba, N. (2011). Food and faith. A theology of eating. Cambride University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Wageningen Academic Publishers 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Communication, Philosophy and TechnologyWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations