Dr. Melanie Joy: A Cage Called Carnism

Spring/Summer 2018 The year is 2015. I’m nervously navigating my way around a staggering amount of food stalls, all neatly lined up in a vast grid taking up the rooms inside London’s Olympia exhibition centre.

There’s no denying it: I’m late for a talk. With wavering enthusiasm and an undeniable level of anxiety, I rush around the maze known as VegfestUK, Britain’s most extensive annual festival on the vegan lifestyle; though few committed herbivores would be caught dead referring to their diet as a lifestyle. The main reason behind my visit – more than the products on display – is to see a woman I’d first encountered through the wildly successful internet platform TED, whose self-proclaimed mission to introduce ‘ideas worth spreading’ to communities around the world, has resulted in a YouTube archive of over 2.600 talks. Out of these, the presentation of the speaker I’m here to see ranks among the top 1% of the most watched.

A Cage Called Carnism MELANIE JOY Words by Steffen Michels Photography Ulrike Rindermann

In just under nineteen minutes, Toward Rational, Authentic Food Choices by Dr. Melanie Joy successfully outlines the main cornerstones of the psychology of eating meat Joy has compiled during years of research – and it does so in a way that is both non-judgmental and accessible to all.

Though a great feat, it certainly isn’t the Harvard-educated psychologist’s most notable achievement. There’s also, for example, the prestigious Ahimsa award, which Joy received for her work on global nonviolence in 2013. Only seven other people had previously enjoyed the honour, among them Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. The foundation for this recognition was laid in 2001, when Joy coined the term ‘carnism’ to describe the ideology behind the consumption of certain animals. An extensive ex-

220

planation of the idea is offered in her 2009 book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows – widely considered a must-read amongst vegans. In summary, the theory goes as follows: We rightfully understand veganism to be a system based on beliefs. In contrast, eating certain species is generally considered as simply ‘the way things are’. This assumption, however, falls short of acknowledging that whenever we decide to engage in an act despite there not being a need to do so, we make a choice – and choices are always based on beliefs. Therefore, carnism is not only an ideology in the same way veganism is, it’s also an invisible one because we don’t perceive it as such.

We fail to see the thought system behind it. “Have you ever wondered why you might eat certain animals, but not others? Have you ever wondered why you haven’t wondered?” Joy asks a baff led audience during her TEDx talk.

Certainly, some will question the concept of an invisible belief system. But by undermining the notion, we’re faced with an uncomfortable truth. If ‘just the way things are’ is the only reason for the slaughter of a pig whilst the same treatment of a dog would be seen as outrageous and wrong, then this justification doesn’t stem from rational thinking. Fatally, ideologies start to dominate our perception of the world by being rooted in traditions and culture. When we stop questioning ideas because of how established they are, however, we no longer live by them, but for them. It’s this dominance over our thoughts that helps carnism remain invisible. And our failure to recognize the system comes at a cost.

Carnism, Joy argues, runs counter to what she classifies as ‘core human values’, such as compassion, justice and authenticity. To make our-

selves act against said values, we employ defence mechanisms. This is why we f linch each time we see footage of torturous factory farming and slaughter of animals on television or social media, yet we have no inhibitions eating meat. One such mechanism is denial. And denial is all too easy, taking into account carnism as well as its victims, the animals, are largely invisible. Almost all the cows, chickens and other species we eat are bred in factory farms in remote locations, far away from where their fate could ever cross our minds. When alive, they’re referred to as “livestock”, to make us think of them as units of production rather than sentient beings. Once slaughtered, their bodies are dismembered, chopped up, ground, pressed into shapes and packaged pleasingly to our eyes – all of which promotes the mental disconnection between what’s on our plates and what it used to be. We are rarely served recognizable body parts – let alone faces. What would change if we were?

Still, denial in its passivity wouldn’t suffice as the only instrument employed in the defence of carnistic practises. A more active tool is constituted by justification. Through her research, Joy has discovered that we justify carnism chief ly by considering some of the assumptions surrounding it as facts, instead of accepting them at face value. In other words, we look at myths, yet see truths. To further explain this, the author has identified the three most frequently-occurring defences which she refers to as the “Three Ns of Justification”. “Eating animals is... What do you think?” Joy asks her audience. All three Ns are named within ten seconds, after a number of shy guesses. It is “normal, natural and necessary”, she confirms.

These myths can also be applied to current and past cases of presumed hierarchy between people of different genders and ethnicities. Historically, the idea of men being preeminent over women and one ethnicity being preeminent over another was often so prevalent, that these notions were also considered normal, natural and necessary.

However, humanity has worked – and is still working – collectively to overcome such thought patterns in an effort to create a just world for all. Why, then, do we refuse to accept the oppression of women, people of colour and other marginalized groups in society because it’s supposedly normal, natural and necessary, but we employ the same myths to justify our supremacy over animals?

A third and last defence mechanism that enables us to disregard our objectivity and transgress our feelings of morality, Joy asserts, lies in cognitive distortion. We simply don’t fully perceive animals as what they truly are. If we did, one could argue, the phrasing would be ‘who’ they truly are.

We tend to believe that unlike humans; most animal species lack individuality and personality. Their sheer numbers and the standardized ways in which we breed, farm and slaughter them suggest that they are perfectly exchangeable. A life on a conveyer belt is followed by another, and yet another and countless more – an endless supply of bodies, destined to be harvested like fruits from a tree.

And we harvest so extensively, quantifying animal slaughter is a daunting task. Data obtained from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations shows that every year, roughly 70 billion land animals perish in the production of food. This is surpassed by an estimate of 90 billion fish caught in the wild (though assessment of the second number is problematic because quantities of marine animals are so large, they’re not counted per capita, but in tonnes). To put this in perspective; that’s about 438 million animals a day, 18 million an hour, 300.000 a minute and 5000 animals a second. By the 30 seconds it took you to read this paragraph, 150.000 animals have been killed for food.

To create a more just and authentic world, it’s our responsibility to overcome carnism the same way we’re working on vanquishing other violent thought patterns. We must ask ourselves how we can discard our emotions every time we purchase something that’s the product of animal exploitation, although it’s simply not a necessity. The more of us do, the more will be achieved: “A movement succeeds when it reaches a critical mass of witnesses – that is, enough witnesses to tip the scales of power in favor of the movement”, Joy explains in Why We Love Dogs.

But carnism won’t be witnessed by masses if individuals fail to make it visible. Hence, two and a half years after attending her talk at VegFestUK, I sit down with the renowned psychologist who single-handedly enunciated the most elaborate and profound theory to date on why we love some animals, yet eat others, without being able to rationally explain this divide. It might have largely shaped some of the most essential decisions in our lives until now, but carnism is a cage we’re capable of stepping out of – and by doing so, we can empty some other cages along the way.

Steffen Michels: You currently reside in Berlin, Germany, which is commonly considered a great place for vegans.

There are many vegan restaurants and the city in general is

221

MELANIE JOY

a very progressive environment where new ideas f lourish.

Would you say that you’re in touch with the local scene and if so, what’s your perception of it?

Melanie Joy: Berlin is very progressive and it’s easy to be vegan here. I’ve travelled around a lot and I have a pretty good basis for comparison. If you’re looking for my perception of the scene, it’s socially-progressive. It’s very different from Los Angeles which is also incredibly veggie-friendly. I’m a health vegan as well as an ideological one and it’s not as easy to eat healthily here as it is in California. And that’s not the best thing in the world for me. In Germany and Europe in general, veganism is often more related to animal rights than it is to health. Whereas in the US, you have these two tracks.

You’ve got political or social veganism and then you’ve got the health angle.

SM: Traditionally, meat features heavily in German cuisine.

Each time I visit, I’m astounded by the proliferation of plantbased options in restaurants and supermarkets. In some comparable countries, the vegan movement isn’t spreading as noticeably. It often tends to be seen as bourgeois and elitist. What kinds of prejudice have you encountered as an advocate of animal rights?

MJ: One of the things I want to point out is that carnism maintains itself in two ways. In some of my work after Why We Love Dogs, I talk about two types of defence mechanisms that are necessary to maintain all oppressive systems. There are primary defences, which essentially validate an oppressive system like carnism. Primary carnistic defences teach us to believe that eating animals is the right thing to do.

They validate carnism. And then there are secondary defences that exist to invalidate the system that challenges the oppressive system; so in this case, that’s veganism. These secondary defences essentially teach us to believe that not eating animals is the wrong thing to do. Carnism basically keeps itself alive by ensuring that it remains stronger than its counterpoint, veganism.

And there are a variety of types of secondary defences. One of the common ones is projection. Projecting onto the people who represent the challenging system – in this case vegans – negative ideas, sometimes negative stereotypes. It’s basically a way of shooting the messenger. If you shoot the messenger, you don’t have to take seriously the implications of their message. So there are all sorts of anti-vegan stereotypes. In some ways, these are getting better as people become more informed about veganism. And in other ways they’re intensifying as veganism becomes stronger and more of a threat to carnism.

So we see there are these prejudicial attitudes or stereotypes against vegans. One of them is that vegans are a bunch of bourgeois, white suburbanites and urbanites who are disconnected from the source of their food. And this isn’t true.

For one, the movement is much more diverse than it’s given credit for being. There are more people of colour in the movement than the general public realizes. But people in positions of leadership tend to be white and that’s a problem because of white privilege. It’s just like there are more men in positions of power when the movement is primarily made up of women. So on one hand, it’s important for vegans to

222

A Cage Called Carnism

begin to ref lect on class privilege, race privilege and other forms of privilege so that we make sure that the movement ref lects this real diversity in ways that matter, like having people in positions of leadership who are not white, wealthy and male.

It’s also important that we recognize that some of this is a negative stereotype against vegans as a way of discrediting their message. People do believe that vegans are disconnected from their food. You know, you’re buying these things in packages... And if instead you were getting back to nature and killed the animal yourself, you’d really reconnect with the roots of your food. That’s the idea people have.

anatomically made to ingest and digest meat. Our teeth, digestive system and other aspects of our bodies are not those of carnivores. But these findings are frequently ignored because they interfere with the defence mechanisms commonly employed.

MJ: Exactly.

SM: But first and foremost, that’s not the reality of any of the products we buy in supermarkets; it has nothing to do with the consumption most people engage in. And it doesn’t ref lect the empathy we are naturally capable of feeling.

MJ: That’s right. And so there’s this myth – something I believe is part of a backlash against veganism – which you could call a back-to-nature movement.

Sometimes it’s the locavore movement although that’s a good idea if you can do it. In the US, there is this big debate that we are too removed from our food.

People certainly believe this applies to vegans. I’d suggest that that’s a carnistic defence, a really distorted way of thinking. If we’re truly connected with the source our food and the source of our food is animals, we won’t want to kill them and eat them in the first place because we’ll be connected with our empathy for them.

SM: Right, and to add a biological viewpoint, there’s so much evidence now suggesting that humans aren’t

SM: You mentioned something else I found really interesting. The situation for vegans is becoming easier on one hand because people are starting to take them more seriously, but on the other hand, it’s growing more acute.

I actually think that’s a welcome development because it means there’s a threat and it’s being perceived; otherwise people’s attitudes towards veganism wouldn’t become more drastic. So that in itself is a good sign and I dare say that any minority in history would have faced that. Just before you hit a point when opinions change, a radical backlash is to be expected. It implicates changing perceptions.

MJ: That’s right. So on one hand, stereotypes are diminishing a little bit as veganism is becoming more normalized. But on the other hand, you can see that some of these myths are increasing in their fervour, like the whole myth of organic, bio or humane meat. You know, a lot of vegans feel like “Oh my god, we worked so hard for so long and now we have to deal with people eating ‘happy’ meat?”

And I always tell them it’s not in spite of their efforts; it’s actually because of them. Animal agribusiness isn’t going to just pull over because we’re being successful; it’s going to fight back.

And that’s part of what we’re seeing now.

SM: Relating to this, in Why We Love Dogs you discuss so-called ‘socialized critics’ who clearly oppose unneces-

sary violence, however help maintaining the ideology of carnism on the whole by focusing on singular cases of cruelty, rather than challenging animal agriculture as such. These ‘rational moderates’, as you call them, make vegans appear radical by contrast.

How can we work towards a more nuanced discussion where the distinction becomes clear?

MJ: Yes, I really believe that it’s impossible to have a truly objective conversation about eating animals as long as we’re operating from within the very system that conditions us to believe that eating animals is the right thing to do and it’s legitimate. We have to step outside, out of that system.

And that requires becoming literate; it requires becoming aware. How we define rational and radical is largely determined by what lens we’re looking at the situation through. If we’re looking at the world through the lens of carnism, we’re looking at eating animals through the lens of carnism. Anything that challenges this idea that eating animals is the right thing to do is going to be perceived as invalid. And one way to frame something as invalid is to frame it as radical or extreme.

SM: And how do we move beyond that? How do we manage to make it understood we’re not arguing about singular cases of violence towards animals that outrage us when we see news footage? We’re talking about the system as such and about the fact that most people don’t perceive the consumption of animal-derived products to be a system in the first place. So we need to make people understand that it is.

MJ: I really believe strongly that we need to raise awareness. First of all, as vegan advocates, we need to be aware of carnism ourselves. You know, you have to understand the mentality of

people you’re reaching out to. And also, we need to understand how to communicate so that we bypass this internalized defensiveness that we often encounter. But a first step is simply raising awareness of carnism. Name it. Keep putting it out there. Imagine if we had never named racism. How would we be able to talk about social policies and interpersonal dynamics without having given it a name? So we need to make carnism visible by naming it. I think it’s very important that we also expose carnism – the structure of the system.

You know, carnism is organized around these defences that become deeply internalized in people. These defences are basically like cognitive biases. They’re biases in the way that we think and process information.

They distort our perceptions so that we think less rationally and we’re disconnected from our natural empathy.

Research has shown that when people become aware of their biases, they’re less inf luenced by them. So we really need to raise awareness. Help people become literate about carnism, veganism, these defence mechanisms and about how carnism has hijacked their minds so that they act against their own interests without realizing what they’re doing. I’m almost never not invited to talk about carnism but it wouldn’t be this easy to get invited to talk about veganism. We come at the conversation from this angle where we speak to people in a way that honours their dignity. It really says that we’re all part of this system. You’re not a bad person because you’re engaging in problematic behaviours; you’re part of a system that’s conditioned you to think and act a certain way.

SM: And this can be challenging to communicate. People sometimes ridicule vegan activists because they don’t

understand in what ways the system makes them victims as well. They don’t see the system from the outside because they’re operating from within it. So you’re right – carnism needs to be made visible. In that context, I think it really needs to no longer appear underlined red in Microsoft Office. I’ve been tweeting Microsoft but it appears they don’t read my tweets...

MJ: Yes, we need to get it into the dictionary, too! It’s on Wikipedia. And that’s a big deal. It took years for it to get on there. It was knocked down as neologism and basically, anti-vegans were fighting it. At least, that’s what it seemed to the people who were working on Wikipedia. But it’s a first step and people are trying to get it into dictionaries which would help, too.

SM: As the title reveals, your latest book Beyond Beliefs: A Guide to Improving Relationships and Communi–cation for Vegans, Vegetarians and Meat Eaters, seeks to reconcile what are often regarded to be entirely incompatible ways of living.

Can you identify some key tools that are beneficial to establishing better exchange and inclusiveness?

MJ: A lot of the book talks about the basic principles of healthy relationships and communication that apply beyond just vegan and non-vegan relationships. It’s important to remember that underneath the differences in ideology, or any differences for that matter, is a relationship between people. And that’s where the focus of the communication and the dynamic needs to be. A healthy relational dynamic and a healthy communicative process – basically a healthy way of relating and communicating – they look exactly the same no matter what we’re talking about. Whether it’s carnism versus veganism or whether it’s to go out or stay home on a Saturday night doesn’t matter. Once we learn how to relate to others in a way that honours their dignity and that helps us feel more connected and secure in our interactions, we’re able to manage any – virtually any – difference. It becomes a lot easier.

A really specific tool I can share with you is that in a communication, there are always two parts. There’s the content which is what we’re communicating about and there’s the process which is how we’re communicating. The process matters more than the content. People tend to forget the latter. But they rarely forget how they actually felt in a communication. And the process determines how we feel.

When your process is healthy, it’s a process that creates a sense of connection between you and the other and a sense of security. Security and connection are the foundations of healthy relating. And when your process is healthy, your goal is not to be right; it’s not to win a debate. Your goal is to share the truth of your experience. It’s to share your thoughts and feelings and needs and to hear the truth of the other person’s experience, to hear their thoughts and feelings and needs. So a simple shift from content to process can dramatically change a relational dynamic and the communication in that moment. Because we go from saying “I just want to convince you, this is why you should be vegan” to “I want you to understand my perspective and I’m interested in hearing yours”.

223

MELANIE JOY

SM: Absolutely. It’s much more inviting and it actually gets us to be critical about our actions in which way I think we can also see the shortcomings of said actions. A lot of progress is established through experience. And experience is something we just can’t pass on or teach. Everyone has to, well, experience it themselves. But we can’t encourage this unless we learn how to healthily relate to others.

MJ: That’s right. In relationships, differences are rarely the problem. They can of course cause problems with compatibility but more often, it’s how we relate to the differences that’s the problem.

SM: Finding healthy ways of relating to ourselves is important, too. I think sustainable activism is more effective in securing long term goals. Little is accomplished if one’s advocacy is a source of anxiety and stress. How can activists find ways to remain positive and mentally healthy in a system that seems so incredibly repressive, where there is so much negativity coming at them?

MJ: Well, having connected and fulfilling relationships is certainly helpful. Healthy relationships can be a source of tremendous resiliency in our lives. That’s any kind of close relationship. The kind where you can be yourself, you know? You can be witnessed for who you are and you can talk authentically. I’m talking about low-maintenance relationships. One of the things that motivated me to write Beyond Beliefs is that studies have shown that people who have connected, fulfilling relationships fare better in basically every area of life. They’re more successful in their careers, they live longer, they’re healthier and they have a reduced risk of depression and other psychological issues.

So it’s really important to foster healthy connections and relationships. Work on them – they take work. Make that a priority and your life becomes enriched and automatically more sustainable.

Sustainability is an important issue for everybody.

Activists, vegan ones in particular, and probably artists, too, burn out because they’re people who have chosen to open their hearts and minds to a world that’s full of suffering. It’s a world that’s deeply dysfunctional and incredibly violent. And when you’re a person who has chosen to open yourself up to that, it can be traumatizing and it often creates some form of traumatic response or post-traumatic response. So it’s really important for us, those of us who are working to transform this world, whether we’re healers in some way, working with patients, or we’re activists or artists who are using their form of art to raise consciousness; it’s important for us to realize that allowing ourselves to be open and to remain open, we have to really make sure that we have built up an internal resiliency so that we can navigate the pain that can come with that.

And we do this by committing to self-care, by really prioritising that. Our primary relationship is with ourselves.

We should be treating ourselves the way we treat a beloved partner. Really making sure that on each level we’re meeting our own needs to the best of our ability. Physically, by taking care of our bodies and getting enough sleep but also psychologically, emotionally and spiritually. Nurturing ourselves and giving ourselves permission to do that. The

224

A Cage Called Carnism

degree to which we attend to and honour our own needs – which is essentially a form of honouring our dignity – is the degree to which we are resilient enough to do this important, transformational work for the long haul.

SM: Before we ever even worry about sustainability, we encounter another challenge. There’s a significant fear of alienation from other members of society when we question the status quo.

In an ideal world, we’d live free from such doubts and feel inspired by those who seek to make positive changes.

Adopting a plant-based diet can be a challenge, but it can also be a good lesson, sensitizing you towards issues others care about. Aside from the benefits of veganism as such, in what ways has it shaped you and your view of the world?

MJ: I’ve gotten a lot healthier; physically healthier. That’s been really amazing for me. I’m definitely healthier at 51 today than I was when I was 23, when I first went vegetarian. Also, veganism and advocacy are a humbling experience. When you see what happens to those animals, the level of suffering... I feel a lot of gratitude that I wasn’t born into a system where my body is a unit of production and where I’m dismembered whilst conscious and have my babies taken away from me. I can’t even fathom. So it’s created an incredible gratitude in me. I feel humbled to have met thousands and thousands of activists who are doing amazing, world-changing work. And I’m so honoured to be able to witness all of their amazing contributions. So I guess those are the ways it’s really shaped my view of the world.

SM: I’ve found that going vegan can broaden your horizon, help you share your insights in an effective way and

inspire you to work harder on your interpersonal relationships because it teaches you to better listen to and respect others.

MJ: I’d agree with all of that. And also, the core values of the vegan or moral movement that drive our work are compassion and justice. I really feel deeply anchored in those values.

They’re constantly on my mind. And I’ve seen that the vegan values are really all of our values. Everybody shares them. I use these values and integrities as a guide-post; they guide my actions.

And I think being vegan and being so mindful of wanting to be compassionate towards others, got me thinking about how to be compassionate. You really think about this as a vegan.

“Should I buy this or not? Is this something for me?” As you’re going on your vegan journey, it’s like “Oh, you know, I was wearing wool all my life and now I’m not buying wool anymore because I learned about how it’s produced”.

It really encourages you to ref lect on your impact.

SM: Exactly – I think ref lection is a very important word in that context.

I tend to find myself in situations where I think I used to buy this or do that many years ago but I never really thought about it. This is of course part of the system which doesn’t want you to think about it. But now being in a position where I’m aware I have a choice and that choice makes a difference... Why wouldn’t I choose something that I know is better for animals, the planet, my health, even my sanity? It’s important for people to regain that ability to actually make rational, informed choices. Some of the gains of adopting a plant-based diet are not obvious at first, but surface later.

Living by your own moral codes gives you a sense of achievement and agency. As Peter Singer states in Animal

Liberation: “Here we have an opportunity to do something, instead of merely talking and wishing the politicians would do something”. To me, this is a really captivating idea; the notion that it’s possible to reclaim a degree of autonomy with very simple actions.

MJ: Absolutely. And people do have agency in different parts of their lives.

There are people who are doing great work in the world, like teachers, and humanitarians who are doing important work everywhere. People find ways to claim agency. And being vegan is one of those ways, especially since carnism is so entrenched. It takes a tremendous amount of conviction and courage to step outside a system as deeply entrenched as carnism.

And with that can come a real pride for choosing not to follow the path of least resistance but to follow the path of authenticity. Follow the path of your heart.

SM: No doubt there’s also a ‘feel good’ factor attached to vegan consumption. And it ultimately goes back to confronting and leaving behind the defence mechanisms we’ve previously employed to suppress our emotional response to violence. In a culture that often drives us to adopt an egocentric philosophy on the road to success and fulfilment, allowing ourselves to be in touch with our empathy for others is a real joy.

MJ: And veganism is just exponentially exploding all over the world, I’d say.

There’s something really encouraging in being a part of such a positive movement, too.

SM: The ways in which you raise awareness on internalized carnistic practises aren’t restricted to your literary efforts. You founded the non-profit organization Beyond Carnism (car-

nism.org) whose website offers educational videos and a database of academic research amongst other things.

The initiative also runs the Centre for Effective Vegan Advocacy (CEVA).

Can you tell us about CEVA’s objectives and how it goes about achieving them?

beyond just the live trainings. There’s a tremendous benefit to live trainings because we go to a country to do a two day training live for advocates and often people come from all over the place. So being there, we get people together who would not normally all be in a room together. I do the trainings with Tobias Leenaert who runs CEVA with me.

He’s the Vegan Strategist (veganstrategist.org), that’s his website.

MJ: CEVA’s mission is to increase the impact of vegan advocacy worldwide.

We use a double-sided approach at Beyond Carnism. One side is weakening carnism by raising awareness, by exposing carnism. And the other side is strengthening veganism because of this belief that it’s about shifting the balance, tipping the scales of power. And the primary way we try to strengthen veganism is by strengthening the people who are on the frontlines of the movement. I mean the vegan movement is more than just advocates, of course. We have entrepreneurs and we have plant-based, clean meat initiatives and vegan businesses.

But even in those cases, many of the people who are starting these initiatives are vegan advocates, they are spokespeople for veganism. At CEVA we help provide tools for people who have stepped out of carnism and are working to raise awareness amongst other people, to encourage them to also step out of the system. Because carnism is structured in such a way to silence vegans and to invalidate the vegan message, we try to counteract that by demonstrating the ways in which carnism works and by providing practical strategies for communicating and advocating.

SM: So what’s the most unexpected country you’ve done trainings in?

SM: How has the program been received so far?

MJ: We’ve done trainings on four continents. And we’re developing a series of videos now so we can expand

MJ: I mean, we’ve been to Estonia, Finland, Denmark, South Africa, Chile, Argentina, Latvia and more. We’re also going to Taiwan in a few weeks to do CEVA trainings.

SM: CEVA also offers grants to other charitable organisations encouraging people to adopt a plant-based diet, given they meet certain criteria. One of these is to abstain from shaming tactics. In a guest post for the Vegan Strategist, you explain how a sense of righteousness can lead vegans to denounce fellow vegans and their actions and how shaming is often aimed at getting the victim to do something you want them to do. The reality, however, is that the abuser usually achieves the opposite. What makes this behaviour within our community counterproductive to the expansion of the movement?

MJ: First of all, I want to just say that I don’t think the vegan culture is an especially shaming culture. You know, as I said before, we’ve been born into a world that’s deeply dysfunctional and we learn to be fundamentally non-relational in many ways. We learn to interact with others in a way that’s non-relational, in a way that creates insecurity and disconnection rather than security and connection. And shaming is an essential part of that and we’ve inherited it.

Most people don’t realize that shame is probably one of the most disruptive if not the most disruptive emotions to our sense of self. It’s so disruptive to our sense of security and feeling intact, that most of us do just about anything to avoid feeling shamed. And most of us carry around a significant degree of shame because we’re born into this world where shaming is normal. Money is made out of shaming people, making them feel like they’re not good enough unless they do this, or buy this, or look this way.

So most people are extremely vulnerable when it comes to feeling shame and they’re deeply defended against experiencing it. And shamed people tend to wrap themselves in the emotional armour necessary for protection from further shaming. They tend to withdraw or attack in self-defence. Shamed people are not people who feel inspired to take positive action on their own or others’ behalf. So when we expect somebody to change by shaming them, we’re actually watering the very seeds in them that create a sense of defensiveness. And that certainly makes them trust us less, feel less comfortable, less connected and less open in their presence.

SM: Does this by implication mean that actually appealing to their sense of authenticity or pride of morality is a way of getting them to open up to you?

225

MELANIE JOY

MJ: That’s a good question. I’d say honour their dignity.

There are all these meta studies on dignity and on people’s experience of being treated as though they’re essentially worthy or not – feeling like they’re seen as fundamentally worthy beings, not less than others. And when people feel that their dignity isn’t being honoured, they’re more defensive and therefore less receptive. And they’re often triggered to a greater or lesser degree, meaning that when somebody is defensive, they’re defensive because they perceive a threat. It doesn’t have to be a physical one. When you perceive a threat, your nervous system is triggered so you’re in fight-or-f light, essentially. It’s just a matter of degree. You’re not thinking as rationally and you’re not as connected to your empathy for the other person. You’re less open. We want people to be open. The last thing we should do is to shame them which makes people defensive and shut down.

SM: In the aforementioned guest post, you also speak of toxic perfectionism, which generally results of the fear of being judged. I’m no stranger to having to explain myself and I’ve been in situations where I felt defeated for not being able to produce a sound answer to every question surrounding a plant-based lifestyle. When you first went vegetarian and later vegan, there wasn’t as much of a support system as there is now. Without this, how did you tackle feelings of inadequacy?

MJ: I went vegetarian at 23. Maybe four to five years later, I went vegan. I was lucky my family was mostly supportive.

However, I was teased and it was really hard. I was frustrated at not having the words. It was what ultimately led me to write Why We Love Dogs. Because, like so many vegans, I had this visceral sense of the rightness of my choice.

Rightness meaning that this isn’t out there. This is not in alignment with what we all believe. I knew on a gut level that what I was doing made sense rationally and certainly made sense ethically. Yet I was treated by some of the people around me as though I was being irrational and to some degree, even unethical. So I was very frustrated. I’d try to communicate and I really committed to learning about veganism because I wanted to be able to communicate more effectively and you can’t do that unless you’re informed.

SM: And so you started working on a theory on the psychology of eating animals as well as, of course, a terminology because carnism is a word that you have coined. Would you say your own efforts to do this have helped you?

MJ: Definitely. My own work and really working on myself as a person and on my own growth; those things have helped me. Because I wanted to be a spokesperson for something I really believed in. And I wanted to do it in a way that was effective and that wasn’t burning me out in the process. So I really committed to working on myself and getting informed so that I could understand the grounding and have the words. Reading Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation was huge to me. It gave me a philosophical rounding. It was the same with The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams.

I encourage other vegans to do these things, too.

226

A Cage Called Carnism

SM: I think this is important to anyone engaging in activism. So often, we don’t make the changes we need to make in our lives because we’re afraid of what could go wrong. But authenticity always comes at a price.

Do you still encounter stepping stones and downsides to your advocacy in spite of being well-established and respected in both veganism as well as psychology?

MJ: I’m actually expanding my advocacy. I’m talking about issues beyond veganism and carnism more publicly now. I just wrote a new book about it. Really addressing issues within the vegan movement is a way to help empower and increase the efficacy of the movement and also just for purely ethical reasons, talking about issues of privilege within the vegan movement, white privilege, class privilege, male privilege, heterosexual privilege...

That’s made me re-appreciate how difficult it is to have coherent, useful conversations if you’re not used to having these conversations – if you haven’t practiced them. You haven’t developed the vocabulary around them and become comfortable with the types of responses. It’s basically the defensive reactions you get.

SM: The reactions to your 2015 TEDx talk were not defensive but overwhelmingly positive. How did that make you feel? Would you say there’s room for a sense of gratification and pride in activism?

MJ: It was really great. I mean, the talk itself was in Munich which is probably not the most vegan-friendly part of Germany. The real fear I had was the response in this particular city because there were 800 people who were not vegan or vegetarian, or most

he drove a truck packed with squealing stuffed animals seemingly on their way to slaughter around New York. Where is the advantage of such unconventional methods to bring attention to an issue, from a psychological perspective?

SM: Artistic advocacy also demonstrates that a group of people believing in the same cause are not a stereotypical, strange cult but a diverse network of individuals with their own reasoning, aspirations and distinct approaches to making progress.

MJ: That’s right.

of them weren’t, anyway. But I got a standing ovation for the talk. That was incredibly gratifying. It was really, really moving to me. And there’s not just room but a need for a sense of gratification and pride in our activism and in ourselves. Healthy pride is the opposite of shame. When you feel a sense of pride, you don’t feel less than others and you don’t feel better than others. You feel fundamentally worthy and good about who you are and how you are.

SM: You spoke to an audience that day that was mostly new or neutral to the cause. It was not a vegan convention but a general event to introduce and debate new ideas. In a sense, the same goes for this interview – METAL is not normally about activism, much less the vegan movement. How important is it to you and your organization to have an open outreach and address audiences more removed from the subject matter?

MJ: That’s what we do at Beyond Carnism. We reach out to people who aren’t already involved in vegan activism or in veganism. And what we’re talking about applies to everyone.

It doesn’t just apply to specific segments of society. Everybody is a part of the system of carnism, for better or worse. So the choice isn’t whether they participate but how they participate.

And if they’re not aware of the system, then they can’t choose how they participate. They’re not making their choices freely because without awareness, there’s no free choice. But we see that the internationally-operating food awareness organisation ProVeg is growing really fast. And that’s testament to the fact that most people really do care. And most people don’t want to be a part of a system like carnism, once they become aware of it.

SM: There are many examples of torture and death inf licted upon sentien-

beings in the name of art, often with a noticeable lack of scrutiny from the media. Last year, Artnet.com made headlines by estimating that a grand total of 913.450 animals so far have died for the work of British artist Damien Hirst. Some of these animals were purchased dead; others were killed especially to be turned into pieces. None of their deaths were necessary and few attempts were made to justify them.

MJ: It’s really testament to how art is a social institution and like many, most – maybe all social institutions – they’re again part of the system. It’s just a question of whether they’re going to reinforce the oppression or challenge it. So sometimes you see artists who help to maintain oppressive systems by using their art to further normalize violence and injustice.

SM: Even though it’s important to distinguish that Hirst doesn’t seek out to normalize any of that. That’s not his intention. But he uses animals’ bodies anyway and by doing so, he does normalize what that entails.

MJ: Exactly. It’s not his intention at all.

SM: Fortunately, there are also artists working to raise awareness on animal suffering. Jonathan Horowitz plastered New York’s Greene Naftali Gallery in pictures of famous vegetarians and vegans in 2002, eight years before putting a piece of tofu on a pedestal in one the city’s former meat-packing plants. Both were official exhibitions. Rocky Lewycky made hundreds of ceramic animals for his 2014 Is It Necessary? show at the Santa Cruz Museum of Art and History, only to enter the building each day and smash one. Notorious street artist Banksy has created several graffiti works on animal exploitation and in 2013’s Sirens of the Lambs,

MJ: Artists have played a role throughout history in transforming oppressive systems. They’re often the people who are willing to open their hearts and minds to realities that other people are not willing to see. So artists play the role of witness and they ask others to witness through what they’ve created – to witness something they’d otherwise turn away from. In so doing, they play a powerful role in helping to transform oppressive systems, in my opinion.

SM: It’s beautiful to think that artists not only get to play this role in society but they tend to be the ones who are more open-minded towards new ideas and ideologies, in the first place. This puts them in a really unique position because their work appeals to people who otherwise might not have access to notions like carnism and veganism, for example.

SM: Irrespective of art, our vocabulary has also shaped and been used to shape our perception of animals.

MJ: Language ref lects and reinforces attitudes and behaviours. I wouldn’t say that it comes from any particular institution but it is institutionalized. It’s embraced and reproduced through institutions. If there’s any institution that plays an active role as opposed to a passive role of just recreating language, it’s animal agribusiness, of course. Some of these words – though certainly not all of them – are strategically constructed to distance us from animals. So, for example, in slaughterhouses they call chickens ‘broilers’. They don’t call them chickens.

SM: I remember reading that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) started paying people in the 1970s to come up with terms such as ‘livestock’. It’s bizarre to think of the lengths they go to in order to destroy the link between what’s on people’s plates and how it got there or what it used to be. They’re such drastic measures to interfere with our perception. And barely anyone knows about this.

MJ: Right.

MJ: I’ve always thought about being an artist. It’s not so much about what you do. It’s who you are or how you are in the world. It’s a way of being in the world. And it’s a way of being that tends to be more open, intellectually as well as emotionally. It also has the capacity to creatively take something that might be invisible or look quite different through one set of eyes and communicate that in a way that speaks to people differently. Many artists don’t see different things. They see the same things, differently. And they help people see the same things, differently.

That’s something feminists said in the 60s. And I think it applies to artists, as well.

SM: We also tend to be oblivious to how the fashion industry contributes to the exploitation of animals by creating a demand for fur, silk, wool, leather, etcetera. Out of all of these, attitudes towards fur have changed the most drastically over the years. British journalist Paula Reed started as a fashion director at London’s luxury department store Harvey Nichols in 2013. She re-introduced fur to the brand after its initial departure from it more than a decade earlier.

As a result, there was a wave of protests, petitions, emails and social media posts expressing outrage, forcing her to leave the high-profile position after only thirteen months.

Why do you believe people feel so strongly about fur in particular?

MJ: Many people are less invested in fur in the first place.

And when people are less invested in something, they’re not as invested in maintaining a justification for continuing to do it. I also think that part of it is because men are less invested in fur – as opposed to being invested in meat.

So it’s easier to be against something that firstly, you’re not invested in and secondly, the dominant group or the group that holds the majority of social power is not invested in.

SM: I never thought about this latter aspect but it sounds perfectly plausible. Aside from fur, there are people who are very outspoken about other animal-derived materials in fashion. Lifelong vegetarian Stella McCartney has never used leather in her collections. She recently started incorporating faux leather into her line because she felt tech-

227

MELANIE JOY

nology has finally made it look authentic and luxurious.

McCartney has even teamed up with San Francisco-based company Bolt Thread to create vegan silk made from natural proteins. Synthetic animal products are now made from all kinds of materials. There are leathers made from pineapple leaves, mushrooms and even from wine, in the case of Italian brand Vegea. Yet to many, real skin is still connected to the idea of status. To deny the suffering of animals is one thing, but to think of something as luxurious, at the cost of it being cruel, seems another. Where does this come from?

MJ: They’re two sides of a power coin, in a way. I mean both of them are about an unhealthy relationship with power.

Violence is exercising power over those with less power for your own ends. At least the kind of violence we’re talking about, not self-defence. And status is wanting to be in a position of power when you compare yourself to others; it’s putting yourself in a position of superiority in some way.

I’m not saying that one drives the other. I just don’t think that they’re on totally opposite sides of the spectrum. I mean luxuries are typically some of the most violent items.

Think about foie gras. It’s sort of like luxury is just another justification for doing exactly the same thing that we do for other reasons.

SM: It sounds as if the notion of luxury sometimes goes back to the idea of human dominion of animals, which of course is a little trivialized. But maybe a part of that luxury you buy comes from knowing that it really was once an animal or part of an animal.

MJ: Perhaps. I mean both of them are symbols of superiority. Both of them are putting one individual or a group in power over another and abusing that power. So I don’t think they’re totally disconnected. But this behaviour is not rational. Carnism is not rational. That’s the whole point. The dynamics between luxury and cruelty seem very contradictory. But that’s what happens when you’re operating from within an oppressive system. You engage in totally contradictory behaviours and you don’t see what you’re doing.

I think it’s just a more extreme example of the other stuff.

It’s like eating chicken when you could just as easily eat a soy burger. It’s a luxury by definition. It’s something that’s unnecessary. Something you’re doing because it feels good and it’s an excess. And you’re doing it at the cost of somebody. It’s the same mentality, just taken to an even greater extreme.

SM: Returning to the subject of fashion, I believe awareness on production methods plays a big role. We’ve all seen fur farms but few people know about the realities of leather, let alone wool. In a recent interview with The Guardian, the co-founder of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, has made it clear their focus on fashion has shifted away from fur (which she refers to as “a minority issue”), towards wool. In late 2017, video footage of the artificial insemination of sheep has gone viral on social media because it showed the atrocious techniques employed by the industry that went far beyond viewers’ imagination. In theory, however, ethically-sourced wool is possible – though not in the same quantities. What do you believe needs to happen to bring more

228

A Cage Called Carnism

transparency to products like this, where there is strictly-speaking no moral right or wrong?

MJ: Having this conversation in the context of carnism, I think people need to be aware of carnism; really aware of it. They need to be aware of the system and of what’s happening to the animals. They must be aware of the way their brains have been hijacked in order to even engage in this conversation with any sense of rationality.

Because how we define what’s ethical and acceptable is largely determined by what lens we’re looking though.

And if we’re looking through the lens of carnism, we accept and consider treatment of sheep humane – treatment that would be considered totally unacceptable to do to dogs. So we’re consumed. I think the first step is obviously transparency in practices but really, there needs to be transparency about persistence so that these processes can be looked at more rationally.

SM: Along these lines, you suggest a new concept of labelling on groceries in your book. Instead of vegan and vegetarian labels on products, we could mark products containing animal-derived ingredients as non-vegan to create more awareness. One example you give is “Surgeon General’s Warning: Production of This Food Has Contributed to Serious Environmental Degradation, Animal Cruelty, and Human Rights Violations”. This would help making plant-based products appear less exotic, as well as establishing a reminder of what goes into other items before we purchase them.

Clearly, this is not in the interest of the meat industry. Where do you see the responsibilities of politicians to interfere with standards to create more awareness, potentially at the expense of economical concerns?

MJ: Well, it’s a politician’s job to get involved to protect citizens regardless of the economic interests of companies. That’s one of the key reasons they exist. They absolutely need to be responsible. Unfortunately carnism is so entrenched that most politicians are operating within the framework that prevents them from recognizing the problems inherent in the system.

But at some point, they will. I think carnism is going to head in the direction of tobacco; it’s already starting to.

And as more and more people wake up and more and more scientific research on the benefits of a plant-based diet that doesn’t have a carnistic bias is produced, this is going to start to shift.

SM: But some will argue that taking care of citizens’ welfare also means keeping them in employment. We’re talking about huge numbers of people who could lose their jobs. Obviously there’s a way we can make a transition which unfortunately needs to be gradual. There can’t be one happening overnight. I think the speed at which it occurs is going to be largely determined by the kinds of demand created whenever we make buying decisions.

MJ: It’s not going to happen overnight.

It’s completely unrealistic to imagine it would. But that doesn’t absolve politicians from the responsibility of protecting the public from basically eating toxins, eating poison. And also, they need to recognize that what’s already happening is that meat, egg and dairy companies are starting vegan lines of production because they’re seeing the trajectory that the industry is heading in. My husband, who is the CEO of ProVeg, says that meat manufacturers want to manufacture sausages, for example. They don’t care about whether they’re animal-based sausages or plant-based sausages. What they manufacture is sausages. So it’s simply swapping the raw materials for your

product. Not changing your product fundamentally. This is what politicians can work towards and some of them are trying to do this by challenging meat, egg and dairy lobbies and advocating for more support for plantbased products.

SM: Definitely. It’s no secret that the dairy industry, for example, is struggling. Dutch company Innova Market Insights, who specialises in analyzing global food trends, has predicted the market for plant-based milks will reach an overwhelming $16.3bn internationally this year; more than doubling in size since 2010. Some dairy farmers were ahead of the trend and converted to producing vegan milks before it kicked off. They’re now making profit. I think one way our governments can get involved in securing jobs and revenue is by subsidizing this shift.

MJ: That’s correct.

SM: This is also in the interest of politicians working towards a greener future. People are often appalled when they find out how wasteful and harmful to the environment animal agriculture is. What’s one aspect of this issue you’d like more consumers to be aware of?

MJ: It’s kind of being talked about but not nearly enough: Reducing one’s consumption of animals is one of the single most impactful things they can actually do to help the environment.

Even at the COP 23 summit here, eating animals wasn’t on the agenda. And just putting it on the agenda, putting it out there, is so important. We have the science. We know the facts. The facts are that animal agriculture is one of the single leading causes of some of the most serious environmental problems the world is facing today. And in my opinion, having that concept on the agenda in environmental conferences

and circles is the most important thing we can do.

SM: When this happens on a larger scale, it’ll also be a good time for artists to ref lect on shared progress.

SM: As plant-based meats are becoming increasingly like the real thing and actual meat can now be grown in laboratories without the involvement of animals, a more just world is visible on the horizon. When humanity finally embraces a plant-based existence, it might be for pragmatic reasons rather than out of ethical concerns. It seems important keeping the discussion going either way. I imagine ethical vegans could carry away feelings of frustration and unresolved conf lict that could lead to antipathy towards pragmatic vegans. It’s important to reconcile this so we can mutually move on from our former carnism.

MJ: Absolutely.

MJ: I think when humanity embraces a plant-based existence, we should remember people are different and they’re motivated by different drives and different reasons. I don’t care whether people are motivated by pragmatic reasons or moral ones. The animals don’t care. And research shows that when people stop engaging in a behaviour they’re less invested in defending it. They become more open.

Therefore, they become more open to other aspects that are implicated in that behaviour. They open up towards animal rights or animal issues if they don’t feel like it interferes with their lives and the ways they’re used to living them. I talk about this a bit in my new book. Tobias talks about it on the Vegan Strategist website and he’s written about it in his new book How to Create a Vegan World. We see it with health vegans in the US. I have spoken to many – hundreds at this point, hundreds and hundreds of people – who have become vegan for health reasons and when they were no longer eating animals, they suddenly opened up to ethical veganism.

SM: Many of our readers will be interested in learning more about carnism. A great start would be to watch your TEDx talk and read your book Why We Love Dogs, a thorough introduction to the belief system. In addition to this, what’s your advice to someone who would like to start making sustainable changes – however small they may be – to contribute to the final goal; the liberation of animals?

MJ: There are two things I’d recommend. One is that I always advocate that people become as vegan as possible.

I don’t say, “Go vegan” because that can be unsustainable for people and I don’t say, “Just reduce” because then reduction is seen as an end in itself. I encourage people to try to be as vegan as possible and that means that with each meal, they ref lect on their food choices and ask themselves how they can do less harm to animals through their consumption choices. And if everyone in the world were really as vegan as possible, the world would be vegan fairly quickly. So that’s one thing and I really encourage people to do it. My colleague and friend Kathy Freston, who has written a number of books on veganism, suggests that people crowd out rather than cutting out animal foods.

So crowding out means you’re adding more plant-based foods instead of just eliminating animal-based foods. Then there’s less room for the latter. I think this is in her book The Book of Veganish. It’s one way to move forward being as vegan as possible.

And I also really encourage people to become vegan allies. A vegan ally is a person who’s not yet fully vegan themselves but who believes in the values of veganism; who’s a supporter of veganism and of vegans. It’s a myth that either you’re vegan and you’re part of the solution or you’re not vegan and you’re part of the problem. You can be not vegan and part of the solution by being a vegan ally, by using your inf luence, using whatever tools you have to further the cause. Some of the people who donate to our organization, which is run solely on charitable donations, aren’t vegan. But they believe in what we do so they enable our vegan outreach with their support. Most of the journalists who interview me for major publications aren’t even vegetarians and yet they want to use their inf luence to raise awareness of the cause – to raise awareness of carnism. However people can do it, commit to being an ally to vegans. Commit to a movement whose values, at the end of the day, are probably your values as well.

229