- Taschenbuch: 216 Seiten
- Verlag: Conari Press,U.S.; Auflage: Reprint (3. August 2011)
- Sprache: Englisch
- ISBN-10: 1573245054
- ISBN-13: 978-1573245050
- Größe und/oder Gewicht: 14 x 1,3 x 21 cm
- Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung: 12 Kundenrezensionen
- Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 26.963 in Fremdsprachige Bücher (Siehe Top 100 in Fremdsprachige Bücher)
Andere Verkäufer auf Amazon
+ GRATIS Lieferung innerhalb Deutschlands
+ GRATIS Lieferung innerhalb Deutschlands
Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism (Englisch) Taschenbuch – 3. August 2011
|Neu ab||Gebraucht ab|
Wird oft zusammen gekauft
Kunden, die diesen Artikel gekauft haben, kauften auch
Es wird kein Kindle Gerät benötigt. Laden Sie eine der kostenlosen Kindle Apps herunter und beginnen Sie, Kindle-Bücher auf Ihrem Smartphone, Tablet und Computer zu lesen.
Geben Sie Ihre Mobiltelefonnummer ein, um die kostenfreie App zu beziehen.
Wenn Sie dieses Produkt verkaufen, möchten Sie über Seller Support Updates vorschlagen?
"I think Gandhi would have loved "Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows". For this is a book that can change the way you think and change the way you live. It will lead you from denial to awareness, from passivity to action, and from resignation to hope." --John Robbins, author of "Diet for a New America" and "The Food Revolution"
"An absorbing examination of why humans feel affection and compassion for certain animals but are callous to the suffering of others." --Publishers Weekly
"I think Gandhi would have loved Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows. For this is a book that can change the way you think and change the way you live. It will lead you from denial to awareness, from passivity to action, and from resignation to hope." --John Robbins, author of Diet for a New America and The Food Revolution
"An altogether remarkable book that could transform the way society feels about eating animals." --Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, author of The Face on Your Plate
"A thoughtful book full of substance and style. It should be required reading for anyone interested in what we eat and why." --Kathy Freston, author of the New York Times bestselling Veganist and Quantum Wellness
Über den Autor und weitere Mitwirkende
Melanie Joy, Ph.D. is a social psychologist and professor of psychology and sociology at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. She is the author of the activist handbook Strategic Action for Animals: Handbook on Strategic Movement Building, Organizing, and Activism for Animal Liberation. Website: www.melaniejoy.org and www.carnism.com
Welche anderen Artikel kaufen Kunden, nachdem sie diesen Artikel angesehen haben?
Derzeit tritt ein Problem beim Filtern der Rezensionen auf. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
Somewhere one third into the book, the scenes described in the slaughterhouse with the pig were so gory and appalling that I had to put it away. Flashbacks of that described scene haunted me for half a year. Would have been grateful if there had been a warning/disclaimer.
Die dem allen zugrunde liegende Ideologie verursacht, dass die meisten Menschen gar kein Problem in der Ausbeutung von Tieren und vor allem im Essen MANCHER Tiere sehen.
Wie schon Ludwig Wittgenstein (in etwa) sagte: Die Grenzen meiner Sprache sind die Grenzen meiner Wirklichkeit.
Finanzielle Interessen haben die tierausbeuterischen Industrien und diejenigen, die mit ihnen zusammenarbeiten.
Die vorherrschende Ideologie aber ermöglicht es diesem verbrecherischen System, unbehelligt weiterzuquälen und zu -morden.
"Was labert die da von Ideologien ?" fragen vielleicht manche. "Mein Schnitzel ist doch keine Ideologie, sondern ein Kulturgut!"
Die Mehrheit der Menschen sieht Vegetarismus und Veganismus als Ideologien; Vegetarier und Veganer essen nicht nur anders, sondern denken auf eine bestimmte Weise. Es ist den meisten Menschen aber nicht bewusst, dass hinter der Ausbeutung von Tieren EBENSO eine Ideologie steckt, mit der wir alle aufwachsen und die wir daher (zumindest zunächst) nicht hinterfragen.
Wer ignoriert, dass eine Ideologie, sogar eine Doktrin hinter Speziesismus und Karnismus steckt, der entscheidet sich für eine intellektuelle Präpubertät.
Ich empfehle in diesem Zusammenhang auch "the world peace diet" von Dr. Will Tuttle. Beide Autoren, er und Melanie Joy, beschreiben die Indoktrinierung von Kindesbeinen an. Will Tuttle erklärt, warum es sich beim Essen und Ausbeuten von Tieren um eine Doktrin und Indoktrinierung handelt - und nicht bloß eine Tradition oder kulturelle Sitte.
Beide sind offensichtlich sehr kluge Menschen, die sich einfach und verständlich ausdrücken können.
Melanie Joy geht eher auf die negativen Aspekte des Karnismus ein und beschreibt, wie das karnistische System funktioniert, während Tuttle in der World Peace Diet weniger darauf eingeht, dafür aber Lösungsvorschläge anbietet.
Melanie Joy hat noch mindestens ein weiteres Buch über systematische Tierbefreiung geschrieben, also pessimistisch ist sie ebenfalls nicht. Es liegt an uns Menschen: wir müssen uns selbst und anderen bewusst machen, dass wir bereits als Kinder einer Indoktrinierung zum Opfer gefallen sind, diese Ideologie hinterfragen und unsere eigene entwickeln; am besten natürlich einen respektvollen Umgang mit dem Leben "der anderen" etablieren und wir wissen eigentlich alle, dass "Respekt" keine Ausbeutung bedeuten kann.
Nur durch die Befreiung von der Ausbeutung der Schwächeren können wir uns selbst befreien und auch das menschliche Leben gebührend respektieren.
Es ist ja immer dieselbe Gewalt: die Gewalt gegenüber den Schwächeren.
Wenn wir die Schwächeren respektieren, respektieren wir uns selbst erst recht. Wenn wir die Schwächeren nicht respektieren, dreht sich die Spirale der Gewalt immer weiter und kommt meistens bei uns selbst an.
One reason for this is of course the relative novelty of veganism, and the fact that – societally – talking about, never even mind advocating for, veganism is mostly ‘untrodden ground’. As such, you might say that we’re still trying to figure out how to integrate our veganism with our earlier upbringing, how best to explain our decision, and how to advocate for an end to our use of other animals. That said, as I and my wife found out shortly after going vegan, a lot of the theoretical groundwork for this has already been laid, though it has yet to spread, among other reasons because the business model of the animal charities relies rather heavily on our not seeing the links between individual forms of abuse, and veganism, so that they aren’t really interested in advocating for veganism. Additionally, most authors who write about the animal ‘issue’ seem to prefer making appeals to feelings of ‘sympathy’ and 'compassion,’ while inundating readers with information concerning the many ways in which animals are being mistreated – thereby, sadly, inviting the thoughts that use as such is morally unproblematic, and that certain forms of use (hunting, use of birds for the production of liver, veal eating, bullfighting, capturing/killing of cetaceans/great apes versus other animals) are ‘more unjust’ than others, thereby reinforcing the notion that we humans get to decide what we are and are not allowed to do with other animals.
Around the time we decided become vegans, we attended a presentation by Joy, based on her book Why we Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows. As people who were already thinking about veganism we found Joy’s talk, in which she asks her listeners to ‘make the connection’ between the animals we love and those we eat, quite compelling and convincing, and we felt strengthened in our conviction that we should stop using animals. That said, we also came away feeling somewhat dejected, as the discussion that followed had left us with a vague, but strong impression that trying to convince others to go vegan is at the very least daunting, if not outright impossible. This struck us as vaguely odd, since we were both been quite happy to go vegan once we – finally – found out that a plant-based diet is nutritionally adequate (in fact, healthy); but we didn’t really think about it further, trusting the experience of our fellow ‘travelers’. And when my spouse ran across Francione's work shortly afterwards, we mostly forgot about Joy’s presentation, as we found his work much more helpful in understanding and explaining to others what was behind our decision to go vegan, and why we feel that everyone should become vegan.
A while ago, I decided to read Joy’s book, to see if I could figure out why we felt the way we did. In doing so, I paid particular attention to the questions whether the book contained what I’d consider to be an adequate definition of, and argument(s) for veganism; what information is presented, how that information is tied together; and how useful the book is for people interested in advocacy. Given that Joy’s reason for writing the book, and for inventing the word ‘carnism’, is to convince readers to stop using animals (though I should point out that Joy – sadly – explicitly presents going vegan as no more than an ‘ideal’ to be aspired to; see p. 147), and to help readers understand why not everyone will respond to that message with (equal) enthusiasm, this seems a reasonable yard stick.
As the title indicates, Joy aims to provide an answer to the question why we 'love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows' [given that all animals are equally sentient, and that all animals enjoy life]. The short version of her answer is habit/culture: we use and treat animals in the ways that we do, and for the purposes that we do, because we’ve been doing so since the dawn of history. The question, of course, is why we never think about it for very long. The reason for this, she argues, is that our thoughts are controlled by a "system [that] dictates which animals are edible, and [which] enables us to consume them by protecting us from feeling any emotional or psychological discomfort when doing so. The system teaches us how to not feel." (pp. 17-18.) As such, she argues, these are not considered beliefs, but rather beliefs that are forced on people by (internalized) ‘carnism’ (p. 131-34), and this ‘carnism’ is reinforced by the many ways in which institutions push messages that seem to justify our disinterest in the question whether the use of animals for food (etc.) is justifiable (pp. 96-100). And because Joy thinks a. that this is a ‘system’ (i.e., a coherent whole), and b. that this system is “invisible,” her main aim is to make readers aware of the contours and limits of that system, so that it can be labeled, recognized, and discussed.
So ‘carnism’ refers to the set of mechanisms and behaviors that allow [and ‘force’] us to remain oblivious to the very real consequences our choice to consume animals and animal products has for both those animals, and the humans who work in the industries in which the animals are bred, raised, used and slaughtered. Let me briefly discuss a few of these. At the societal level, this disinterest is expressed through, and enabled by, the physical removal of farms and slaughterhouses from the rest of society, their closed nature, the fact that these are low status jobs, often taken by immigrants and members of marginalized social groups. At the psychological level, some of the mechanisms involved are deindividualization [i.e., our numbering of animals, disinterest in accurately referencing their gender when speaking about animals], objectification [using euphemisms, and speaking about animals in terms of the consumer products we turn them into, such as "beef" and "pork," speaking about "meat" as opposed to "flesh", etc.], and dichotomization [categorizing animals as 'pets' versus 'livestock', and treating animal interests very differently depending on the purpose we assign to them]. And a last element worth mentioning here is the fact that, when you try to point out to people that they are paying for the products of violence, people generally respond by referring to the normality, naturalness and/or necessity of the eating of animals, often helped by the fact that people with institutional power and authority broadcast messages that support the idea that animal product consumption is morally unproblematic. All of these things, according to Joy, are aspects of carnism.
But although this seems to leave little to no room for escape, Joy does believe that we can "[step] outside the [system];" namely, by choosing to “reclaim our empathy that the system has worked so hard to protect you from,” (p. 134), by “bearing witness" (Ch. 7) to the suffering that our consumer behavior necessarily brings about, by allowing ourselves to acknowledge that the animals we use are persons rather than things, and taking responsibility for our actions (“exercis[ing] our free will”).
Although most of the above points strike me as valid observations, I have a number of objections to Joy’s choice of framework, and her explanations as to why people seem to be uninterested in veganism, as well as her suggestions concerning how we can reach non-vegans. Firstly, I find it rather unhelpful that Joy repeatedly invites readers to think it makes moral sense to become vegetarian, or to simply eat animal products less often, even though unnecessarily using and killing (fewer) animals for the production of dairy, eggs, wool, fur, down and leather is just as unjustifiable as using and killing them to turn them into meat directly – not least because dairy cows, laying hens and sheep are all slaughtered once their “productivity” dips below a certain threshold, and/or before they become “too old” to be sold as meat.
Secondly, I find her suggestion that our thoughts and behavior are “controlled by [a] system” rather problematic, for two reasons. First, because calling it an ideology (p.30) serves, implicitly, to push the notion that we’re talking about a coherent, self-sealed whole, acceptance of which is (by association) ‘foundational’ and/or ‘beyond reason,’ as ideology are generally thought to be. It’s not. Because the whole point when it comes to our thinking about animals is that we’re not at all consistent when it comes to our ideas about what is and is not justifiable. Second, because the suggestion that the choice to not think about the question whether our choices when it comes to animal use are justifiable is made for us by a “system” rests on a view of human nature in which there is (by definition) no room whatsoever for personal responsibility. This denies/ignores the fact that our choices to engage in the use and consumption of animals and animal products, and the choice to respond defensively to challenges, are ultimately wholly free, even as they are informed by habit, combined with an unspoken and unacknowledged desire to remain oblivious to the suffering and death that their choices necessarily involve, etc., because of the reasons we think we have for not caring. And while it is certainly likely that people aren’t aware of the myriad ways Joy discusses in which our obliviousness is maintained, I think it rather beside the point to ponder that fact (or, worse, point it out to them), for two reasons. First, this ignores the underlying fundamental question – why we feel comfortable doing so – in favor of how we maintain it, which is ultimately no more than a distraction. Second, because from the perspective of engaging with people, telling them that their behavior ‘can be explained psychologically’ in ‘these’ ways is not particularly conducive to advocacy, because of how by telling them that, you are signaling to your interlocutor that you are pathologizing their behavior. And the question we should ask (and focus on) instead is why the people we are trying to reach feel justified in continuing to use animals (briefly put, because we have been raised to think that the interests of other animals matter less than our own, and because we think we have ‘good reasons’ for using animals), and to figure out ways of getting them to reconsider one or both of these convictions.
Let me try to clarify this by comparing Joys approach to another one, also intended to show people why they should want to go vegan. Because although it is certainly (and trivially) true that we have no control over another person's behavior, we most certainly can help them think through the issues, in ways far more direct than by pointing to the various ways in which people are trying to avoid thinking about the consequences of their behavior for other animals.
One of the most useful advocacy tools that we have come across is Gary Francione and Anna Charlton’s Eat Like You Care (and other books). In this book, readers are shown that our reasons for rejecting certain types of animal use (such as dog fighting, rodeos, etc.) also require us to cease using animals for (almost) all other purposes, because of how all types of use are equally unnecessary, and our reasons thus are equally frivolous. Briefly put, the books shows readers why veganism follows from the values/convictions that they already hold – namely that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals, especially for purposes of pleasure, habit or convenience – and that not by not being vegan, they are living in a way that is inconsistent with those values. And secondly, they show why none of the many objections to veganism that they’ve encountered holds water.
What Francione and Charlton are doing, then, is making explicit the inconsistency between our values and actions, to help make readers rethink their behavior. Joy’s approach, on the other hand, only makes the inconsistency explicit, but does not point to the moral deliberation that underlies the inconsistency, out of her (misguided) conviction that it is useless or impossible to engage with inconsistencies in people’s beliefs and behavior directly. As a consequence (and you see this happening in quite a few negative reviews), while (non-vegan) readers may become fairly aware of the arbitrariness of their beliefs, and come to understand that their defensiveness is ‘irrational’, they fail to understand why their non-veganism is morally indefensible, and inconsistent with their values surrounding the wrongness of inflicting unnecessary violence on animals. All Joys approach has to offer is a request to ‘start caring,’ and/or to ‘bear witness’ [through some combination of watching animals to recognize their playfulness, exposing yourself to gruesome imagery of animals being exploited and killed (while telling yourself that they don’t want to have this on your conscience), etc.]. Leaving aside that I consider this problematic insofar as it encourages disinterest or learned moral helplessness, this strikes me as a huge missed opportunity.
To recap, I have two (interconnected) reasons for considering Joy’s approach problematic. Firstly, I think Joy’s argument extremely – and unnecessarily – disempowering, because of how it encourages the belief that people have no real control over – and aren’t responsible for – the values and beliefs that they hold. Secondly, I am not at all sure that it makes sense to tell readers (and potential advocates looking for insight) that the problem is that those who aren’t yet vegans don’t ‘care’ enough. Certainly they’re not acting in harmony with their values. But that’s not because they don’t care, but because they’ve grown up in a society in which non-veganism is (literally) spoon-fed; in exactly the same way the reactions that we’ve come up with to deny and efface the (importance of the) violence we inflict on animals by using and killing them.
As such, to those who are interested in figuring out what to do with your participation in the (unnecessary) use of our fellow animals, and to those who wish to advocate for veganism, I would really recommend familiarizing yourself with the approach taken by Francione & Charlton, who show why veganism makes intuitive sense, because of how it follows from little more than our realization that our belief that other animals are less valuable, and that we may therefore do with them what we wish, is built on quicksand.
In sum, I think Joy’s book points advocates and people who are interested in learning about the why of veganism in the wrong direction, for the reasons listed above. I am unconvinced of the added value of the concept of ‘carnism,’ and I suspect that the theory as presented will encourage people to make far too much out of the fact that people respond defensively, when it is perfectly possible (after some practice) to respond both respectfully and substantively to objections and questions people raise, without psychoanalyzing people in the way this book encourages. Those who aren’t vegans yet are amply aware that animal agriculture involves violence; and the desire to remain oblivious to ‘the facts’ has much more to do with the fact that they don’t know what to do with it, than with what you might call considered disinterest. As such, what I would suggest focusing on is to help people grapple head-on with the question whether not being vegan is consistent with their values. And for that, I would recommend books like Eat like you Care, Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach, Advocate for Animals: An Abolitionist Vegan Handbook, or Colb’s Mind if I order the Cheeseburger.
Möchten Sie weitere Rezensionen zu diesem Artikel anzeigen?
Die neuesten Kundenrezensionen
It shows you in details how much we are ignorance about our everyday chooses.