-
When it comes to dietary-centered discussions
between non-vegans and vegans, things can
-
easily become heated. From academic one-upmanship
of the most recent research to the far more
-
informal frenzied exchange of sardonic memes
and crafty YouTube comments,
-
it's safe to say: “words are had.”
-
Well, one team of international scientists
decided to analyze the arguments from
-
the meat-eating camp by bringing out the big guns:
the N-Words.
-
Hi it's Emily from Bite Size Vegan and welcome
to another vegan nugget. Humans have a wide
-
array of reasons for eating animals. From
taste to tradition to nutrition, to the absurd
-
assertion that animals want to be eaten—yes
that’s a thing and it’s far more common
-
than you may think.
-
But what’s behind this need to justify,
explain and rationalize the consumption of animals?
-
Why do omnivores often offer up unbidden
impassioned defenses of their dietary practices
-
upon learning someone is vegan—whether they
be passive apologies for consuming meat in
-
their presence or outright attacks and challenges?
-
Well, nothing provokes our knee-jerk defenses
or highlights our human capacity for award-worthy
-
rationalizations, and impassioned justifications,
quite like the perceived judgment
-
of behaviors we’re already insecure about.
-
Despite the seemingly endless iterations of
meat-eating defenses, a similar refrain has
-
been coursing through them for thousands of
years. (Yes, thousands).
-
In 2015, an international team of researchers
produced the first empirical systematic study
-
of meat-consumption rationalizations, more
or less corralling the multitudes of justifications
-
into four main categories, denoted by what
they call the 4N’s:
-
that it’s Natural, Normal, Necessary, and Nice.
-
Building off of the 3N’s presented in Dr.
Melanie Joy’s landmark text
-
Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows, the team added the 4th N of “Nice” to capture “the
-
enjoyment people derive from eating meat,”
which they said “is a major barrier to reducing
-
meat consumption and/or adopting a vegetarian
diet,” as they found that, “meat-eaters…often
-
appeal to the tastiness of meat, or the hedonic
pleasure that they derive from it, as a justification
-
for its continued consumption,” a rationale
not encompassed within Joy’s original 3 strata.
-
In this video, I’ll be presenting an overview
of this particular study, the drive behind
-
the human need for rationalization, as well
as touch upon the broader implications of
-
the 4Ns—which reach far beyond the realm
of dietary dissonance into
-
“Many historical practices, from slavery to sexism.”
-
Perhaps most controversially, the study strove
to address the question: are omnivores inherently
-
more tolerant of social inequality within
their own species?
-
Let’s start with a quick look at the 4N’s
as defined within the study’s parameters,
-
again with the first 3 taking inspiration
from Dr. Joy’s Three N’s of Justification.”
-
N #1: Eating Meat Is Natural
-
Our first N “Appeals to biology, biological
hierarchy, natural selection, human evolution,
-
or the naturalness of eating meat.”
-
Examples include: It is natural for humans
to eat meat; Humans are carnivores; We’ve
-
always eaten meat and/or have evolved to do
so; We have canine teeth; Animals eat other
-
animals; Animals are here for us to eat; et
cetera
-
N #2: Eating Meat Is Necessary
-
The 2nd N “Appeals to the necessity of meat
for survival, strength, development, health,
-
animal population control, or economic stability.”
-
Examples include: Humans need meat to survive;
Meat provides good nutrients; Our bodies need
-
the protein; Protein is a necessary part of
our diet; and, one of my personal favorites:
-
Because if we didn’t, there would be an
overabundance of certain animals.
-
I made a video about that. A while ago. I dance in
it.
-
N #3: Eating Meat Is Normal
-
The 3rd N “Appeals to dominant
societal norms, normative behavior,
-
historical human behavior, or socially constructed food pyramids.”
-
Examples include: Society says it’s okay;
I was raised eating meat; Meat is culturally
-
accepted or an important part of tradition;
A lot of other people eat meat;
-
It’s abnormal NOT to eat meat; et cetera
-
And finally the additional N #4: Eating Meat
Is Nice
-
This new N was introduced to capture “Appeals
to the tastiness of meat,
-
or that it is fulfilling or satisfying.”
-
Examples include: It tastes good; It’s delicious;
Tastes great (I mean bacon...come on)
-
[yes, that’s actually in the official study. Table1];
-
Meat adds so much flavor to a meal it does not make sense to leave it out”, “The best tasting food
-
is normally a meat-based dish; Meals without meat would just be bland and boring; et cetera
-
It’s important to note that a number of
objections and diversion tactics fall a bit
-
outside the realm of the 4Ns. In the first
two studies, wherein respondents offered spontaneous
-
justifications, categories of Humane Slaughter,
Religion, Sustainability, Various Miscellany
-
and the outright rejection of the study’s
premise were recorded.
-
While they subsequently included concepts
of religion, hierarchy and fate within the
-
“Natural” category and health arguments
within the “Necessary,” at the study’s
-
outset, the team clarified that while “there
are numerous strategies available to omnivores
-
to bring their beliefs and behavior in line,
including denying that animals used as food
-
suffer or that such animals are worthy of
moral concern,” their goal was to focus
-
on the “common, yet under-studied mechanism
[of] rationalization.”
-
Unlike straight up denials of animal sentience,
willful ignorance or passive avoidance of what
-
we do to animals—essentially the “I don’t
see it so it doesn’t happen” mentality—“
-
rationalization involves providing reasonable
justifications for one’s behavior when it
-
comes under scrutiny or criticism, or when
one’s behavior is perceived as discrepant
-
with an integral aspect of one’s character.”
-
So what were the results? To go in depth,
please see the blog post for this video linked
-
in the description, but some of the main
findings were as follows:
-
Overall, as expected, “omnivores had the
highest 4N scores, followed by semi-vegetarians.”
-
(meaning people who only eat some animals…apparently).
-
“Vegetarians and dietary and lifestyle vegans had the lowest 4N scores.”
-
Men endorsed the 4Ns more strongly than did
women.
-
Men also engaged in more direct justification
strategies, while women tended towards “indirect
-
strategies of dissociating or avoiding thoughts
of animal suffering.”
-
In regards to whether “individuals…who
consume higher quantities of meat…tend to
-
be more supportive of inequality in group
relationships” and “endorse anti-egalitarian values,"
-
they found, as did previous research,
that “meat justification appears to be related
-
to inequality justification.”
-
The researchers invoked Dr. Joy’s examples
of the 3Ns employment across others issues,
-
from slavery to women’s suffrage. “Opponents
of women’s suffrage… appealed to the necessity
-
of denying women the vote to prevent ‘irreparable
damage’ to the nation, to the natural superiority
-
of male intelligence, and to the historical
normalness of male-only voting as
-
“designed by our forefathers.”
-
In the end, it’s the reasons behind the
rationalizations, the very need for them at
-
all that are the most profound aspect of this
entire issue. It’s something I’ve gone
-
into in depth in many of my videos, including
this revealing speech, along with others I’ve
-
listed in the video description below.
-
Living in a state of cognitive dissonance
wherein our actions directly conflict with
-
our own professed morals and values, causes
extreme dis-ease within us.
-
Eating animals is, in essence, living a double life. Attempting to be animal lovers and animal killers.
-
To see ourselves as good people while we pay
others to carry out barbaric acts of cruelty
-
we would never directly inflict upon another being.
-
This is what the study’s creators termed
the “meat paradox.”
-
Omnivores are left with the choice of either changing their behaviors to align with their values by ceasing
-
to eat animals and their byproducts, or manipulating
their perception of reality in such a way
-
that it at least appears that their behaviors
align with their values.
-
Not surprisingly, the majority of the world
chooses the latter. Because changing our behavior
-
when it comes to eating animals means confronting
head-on our complicity in their enslavement,
-
torture, and murder. It means facing the horrors
we’ve supported and vehemently defended.
-
It means looking ourselves in the mirror with
outright honesty.
-
And brining up protein, desert islands, canines,
traditions, the wisdom of the masses, and all
-
the litany of rationalizations, justifications and
avoidances, is by far an easier and safer choice.
-
There is bliss in ignorance.
For the ignorant.
-
I hope that this video was helpful, and perhaps
even prompts the slightest moment of reflection
-
at the aspects of our behavior we strive so
ardently to justify.
-
Please share it around to spark discussion
and I’d love to hear your thoughts in the
-
comments below. Do give the video a like if
you liked it and subscribe for more vegan
-
content every Monday, Wednesday and some Fridays.
To support messages like this, see the support
-
links below or join us in the Nugget Army
on Patreon via the link in the sidebar.
-
Now go live vegan, own up to your actions,
and I’ll see you soon.
-
There's a stink bug that keeps flying. He's haning out on the light right now.
-
Whoop! There he goes!
-
Ahh!
-
Dude, you're freaking me out!
-
You're making me feel very unvegan. When you fly at me and it scares me
-
because I'm supposed to love all creatures and you're scaring me a little bit, when you do that.
-
Alright little dude, I'm taking you outside.