Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Discussion: attitudinal conflict and cultural models of people
and animals
How can we make sense of the fundamental conflict between the dominant
attitudes articulated by the focus group participants—anthropocentric utilitarianism
and biocentric views? For our group, resolution was achieved by segmenting the
animal world into three categories: food, pet and wildlife. 'Food' animals were
simply necessary for survival; people had to distance themselves from their
unfortunate fate. Indeed, animals consumed for food seem to have become the
ultimate urban 'other', a group whose plight and suffering could not be recognised
without grave risk to longstanding everyday dining practices and patterns. For
Susan, such recognition had deeply disturbed her, and led her towards a vegetarian
diet, but most of the others seemed resolute in their desire to put animals used for
food consumption into a separate category. In the case of pets and wild animals,
however, the human—animal divide became permeable, and similarities between
humans and animals demanded care and compassion and legitimised animal rights.
These socially constructed categories were not rigidly defined or mutually
exclusive, but rather depended upon time, place and situation. Indeed, as the
discussion of cross-cultural practices above indicates, these categories were readily
discerned as relative and culture-bound. But in general, the suffering of pets or
wildlife appears fundamentally different from killing for consumptive purposes,
engaging emotions, sympathies and values that become manifest in human—animal
analogies. Indeed, the following comment by Bernadette rang of an almost 'maternal'
quality: 'Help the animal…. Take care of them. You know, nurse [it] back to health
and let [it] go.' The idea of suffering, in general, is a disturbing one, regardless of
the causes. But animal suffering, in particular, is likely a rare experience in an urban
setting, outside of the suffering of pets. In contrast, the suffering from slaughter, as
detailed by Susan, is something few in an urban setting will ever experience. Hence
a place-based
distancing
operates to shield people from animal suffering during
slaughter in the urban context, working along with packaging and advertising to mute
the psychological dissonance involved in killing for food. Although poultry markets
continue to exist in Los Angeles, and the variety of live animals for butchering and
consumption can be impressive in certain ethnic enclaves, the cultural construction
of animals either as food, pet or wildlife serves to shield people from the emotional
impact of slaughter-related suffering. This renders livestock animals such as
chickens, pigs, sheep and cattle the most 'outsider' of outsider animal groups.
Particularly for urban residents distanced from subsistence hunting, pets and wild
animals can more readily be seen as standing on the boundaries of humanity. For
example, animals identified in the question about whether humans should intervene
to help animals in distress due to natural causes were (in order) whales, seals, birds
and fish, each framed explicitly and implicitly as wildlife, a category which carries
with it strong socio-cultural, even political, images and understandings. Suffering
wildlife may be interpreted or imagined in such contexts as a suffering earth, a
