Sociology and Animal Treatment - Essay Example

Sociology and Animal Treatment by Sociology and Animal Treatment When it comes tohuman-animal relationships, the role of humans cannot be ignored. It must also be considered that human treatment of animals is a sociological topic. Some time back, Bryant (1979) criticized sociology experts for failing to address “zoological connection” as he termed it. He argued that sociologists had ignores the position of animals and how they have affected our social behaviour or how we relate with other humans and the bearing taken by our social enterprise. We can all agree that even now the study of human-animal relationships is anthropocentric and tends to centre on relationships amongst humans. Sociology has a reason to be concerned about how humans treat humans; it is totally warranted. Studies have revealed that treatment of animals with cruelty is associated with antisocial behaviour that follows including violence by people both for adults and children in and out of the family setting (Arluke, Levin, Luke, and Ascione 1999). Another reason is because there is little knowledge about how witnessing animal cruelty affects a person (Flynn, 2000). Another reason is because animals are becoming increasingly significant and therefore the need to study them. It also helps can help us understand the potential of a species abusing their social power. Proper treatment of animals has become increasingly important and abuse is a serious issue that deserves our attention regardless of whether it is related to human violence. Carol J. Adams in her book The Sexual Politics of meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory looks at the issue of animal treatment from a feminist point of view. She embarks on a journey to show that oppression of animals and mistreatment of women are closely connected. She seeks to show that eating meat maintains our patriarchal culture and leads to oppression of both animals and women. She begins by building the idea that eating meat is heavily associated with manliness. She goes on to argue that there is a connection between sexual violence against women and eating meat. She states that the meeting point is the “absent referent” (Adams 1990, p. 45). When she says “absent referent” she means that slaughtering animals absents animals as animals by converting them to food and are no longer looked at as the once breathing and living beings they used to be. They become scattered pieces of meat. She also claims that this cruelty is manifested in our language. We change pig to pork or bacon or ham or sausage and cow to steak, burger or brisket. She further notes that the language covers up the reality (Adams 1990, p. 67). She argues that people can decide to stop masking the reality using language by raising our consciousness with words that evoke memories in others of what they are really eating such as calling hamburgers burnt animal corpses or fishing should be called unprovoked killing (Adams 1990, p. 69). She also says that the words are only offensive to some or many people for being too accurate and not for being untrue. Adams makes a case of comparing women to animals for how both are objectified, fragmented and consumed. She claims that objectification allows an oppressor to look at being as an object and then treat the being as an object for instance raping women and slaughtering animals. She says that this creates fragmentation through dismemberment and the end is consumption and that images of women are consumed all the time. She states that oppression is fulfilled through consumption and annihilates the will and separates the identity (Adams 1990, p. 47). She further shows a series of pictures collected mostly from ads that show complete objectification of women. In one, a turkey is dressed as a woman with a survey being carried to ask people their choice of the turkey’s cut. Another one shows a sexy woman being used to advertise animal products with the tagline “nibble on these”. In another picture, a woman with sexy thighs lies by her side with just her panties and in an adjacent photo is a juicy chicken thigh shaped just like the woman. Another picture is a chicken beer ad that shows a man holding a woman’s leg and pouring salt on it while opening his mouth as if to take a bite. She does succeed in portraying that indeed women and animals are victims of objectification. In another comparison of abuse of female reproductive organs in food ds, she argues that animals like hens and cows suffer exploitation for their feminine products: milk and eggs. Adams is however careful to point out that veganism is not just for females but that she needs to make the connection. She claims that the meat used to e a person; that we should connect the food on the plate and the living animal and to recognize the fact that murdering animals for meat is a violation of their rights (Adams 1990, p. 177). Johan Galtung’s article “Cultural Violence” can also be used to understand this issue further. According to Galtung, cultural violence refers to characteristics of culture that can be used to legitimize or justify structural violence. Structural violence refers to a type of violence that comes from a segment of society being prevented from satisfying their basic need through some social structure or institution. It is connected to social injustice. Some examples of structural violence include elitism, racism, ethnocentrism, heterosexism, nationalism and such other “-isms” (Galtung1990, p. 295). Going back to cultural violence we see that studying cultural violence outlines the way in which violence either direct or structural are justified and accepted by the society (Galtung1990, p. 296). This can be connected to how we treat animals in so many ways. First, people use the excuse of food to kill animals so they can eat them; it is just known that it is part of culture and no law can pass to illegalise the slaughter of animals for food. In some cultures, animals are engaged in violent sporting activities for entertainment; it is justified as culture. It may not be the exact definition Galtung gave but Galtung sought to theorize that some violence can be justified based on culture and is primal. Martha Nussbaum, a popular American philosopher identified seven aspects that play part in a person treating another as an object. Although her perspective is by and large feminist, she notes that that women and animals are both victims of objectification (Nussbaum & Sunstein 2004). The first in this respect is instrumentality. Instrumentality involves treating a person as a tool for the benefit of the objectifier. This could even be said to be self-explanatory with regard to animal treatment. The only reason people treat animals as objects is just so that they can use them for food and other uses. The second feature of objectification is denial of autonomy; in this, a person is regarded as not having independence or self-determination (Nussbaum & Sunstein 2004). Females and animals are treated as if they have no independence and cannot be able to make their own decisions. This is a step that contributes to mistreatment of the victim. The animal has no independence and is therefore an object; It must, therefore, be slaughtered if I need be. The third feature is inertness; this is treating a person as not having agency or activity. Any object like a shoe or a glove can be said to be inert; when a person views an animal or a human being this way, they have graduated their view of objectifying them. The fourth feature is called fungibility; in this, a being is looked at as being able to be interchanged with other objects; in ancient barter trade before the advent of money, objects were traded for objects; some of them were animals; objectification of animals is an ancient custom (Nussbaum & Sunstein 2004). The fifth feature is violability in which a person is treated as not having a boundary; they can therefore be violated at will. This is how animals are treated in many cultures. They can be milked without consent; they can be taken to sports, etc. The sixth feature of objectification is ownership; people have been owned before and are in such cases considered slaves. It remains unknown whether or not sports clubs owning athletes is objectification. However, seemingly, they sign contracts so that there is objectification; ownership is treating a person as property of another. With regard to animals, we cannot even explain this further. Arguably, there is no domestic animal that is not a property; animals are completely objectified. The seventh feature and the final according to Nussbaum’s theory is denial of subjectivity; here, a person is treated as if their feelings are out of the question (Nussbaum & Sunstein 2004). It is obvious that animals’ feelings are not taken into account when they are slaughtered; I doubt they would be so willing to offer their lives for human food. Hal Herzog’s “Some We Love, Some We Eat” is a fascinating book but to vegans and animal rights activists, it is rather depressing. Herzog reveals some very interesting findings or opinions. His research findings do not parallel conventional beliefs. H states that dolphins do not actually possess curative powers as claimed by some (Herzog 2010, p. 22). He further states that pet owners do not possess different personalities from non-pet owners. In his view, killing and cutting up an animal does not make a person stop eating meat; a majority of people. Animals abused when they were kids do not turn out to be violent adults. Herzog (2010, p. 30) notes that 80% of people who are killers have no known history of animal cruelty. He says that perpetrators of animal cruelty are not bad kids but normal kids that will grow up and become good citizens. Herzog reveals that the findings do not reflect commonly held belief because human thinking is irrational in almost everything. This is the reason the human-animal relationship are paradoxical in Herzog’s view (p. 65). Herzog brings up some ideas like people understand the need to be good to animals but what animal to eat or wear depends largely on culture. He also says that pet owners are less lonely than non-pet-owners. Herzog does tell of his own experience; that he has watched cock fights, eats and wears animals but won’t eat veal. He says he is conflicted over the many issues that concern animals. He spends some time discussing cockfighting and wonders why people are not against it but does not say killing chicken for food is wrong or may be it is one of those conflicting situations. We can say that indeed people can make a decision about what is right but then choose to do what they want. He notes that efforts by animal rights groups have been a failure and that their efforts to improve the welfare of animals in farms have made meat consumption more morally right, ironically Herzog (2010, p. 192). James Serpell has also written a book about on human-animal relationship entitled In the Company of Animal. The book contains a lot of history; it establishes itself on the conflict that we personally invest in with warmth of heart to some species while denying others the same (Anthrozoology World 2011). Consider the levels. Some people have deitized certain animals and we still hold non-humans in documentary films in reverence; beautiful animals on safaris and put ladybirds on dewy leaves as screensavers. This can be said to be a form of worshipping as noted by Serpell (1996, p. 17). The animals we that we assimilate into our own cells are found at the bottom of the pyramid. They get on our table after a series of events that we cannot see. In the middle of the pyramid at home and around our lives are the animals that we touch, talk to, and feed. Some are of the opinion that keeping a pet is some sort of parenting. Therefore, all the three levels eliminate man from nature. In this line of thought, the idea of keeping is very unnatural and can be compared to keeping sows in pens that are too small Anthrozoology World, (2011). This is rather confusing. What Serpell is saying here is about our moral torment because of being away from nature. However, it is this distance that can be said to have given us moral latitude to begin with. During the time that animals were capable of feeding on us and fed on us, killing them did not give us such a bad feeling (Serpell 1996, p. 102). Our increased imagination made things more complex. There were certain that were proscribed from doing to other living beings. There rituals to cleanse one from carnal behaviour. Carnivorous animals so not do this when they eat helpless young ones as their mothers watching. One wonders where we got the guilt; it has always been there but this now is the time that we manifest it? We are really green in this. Human beings adopted domestication so they could use the animals, fed their young ones, and when kids saw this they were happy. We continued to like the animals particularly the ones that stayed cute and baby-like. We decided to do even more than that; we conduct studies of the animal in our bed, we get worried, and the wish that we never stopped being animals still haunts us. Carol J. Adams looked at the topic from a feminist point of view and said that it is all in the masculinity. She argued that animals and females have a thing in common by being co-victims. She voiced a strong opinion that provided a strong link between animal cruelty and objectification of women. Then comes John Galtung who is popular for pioneering the discussion on cultural and structural violence. He is basically the first person to suggest that violence can be justified or can have legitimate reasons; this can easily be linked with justification of violence against animals because it is engrained in our culture or because it is necessary to treat animals the way we treat them. Martha Nussbaum also brings a perspective that is also feminist but not about animal treatment; but it is common knowledge that mistreatment of a fellow being starts with objectification. The features of objectification of women can very much be applied to the objectification and eventual mistreatment of animals. I guess women and animals really do have more in common than we thought. Martha Nussbaum’s philosophy is a strong campaign against objectification. Hal Herzog on the other hand does approach the issue from a rather neutral point of view; he admits to eating and wearing animal products without feeling much guilt. The book is quite subtle I must say. He however seems to feel in his heart that animal treatment is wrong but then again there is the culture. He has strong words against animal mistreatment. It seems like he could quit eating animals one day if somebody convinced him well enough; either that or he really does not care. As it can be seen from the discussion, sociological concepts are important in theorizing the relationships between animals and humans; it is all in the culture. References Adams, Carol J. (1990). The Sexual Politics of Meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory, The Continuum Publishing Company, New York. Anthrozoology World, (2011). In the company of animals. James Serpell. [online] Available at: http://anthtothezoo.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/in-the-company-of-animals-james-serpell/ [Accessed 7 May. 2014]. Arluke, A., Levi, J., Luke, C. and Ascione, (1999). The relationship of animal abuse to violence and other forms of antisocial behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, [online] 14(Arluke, A., Levin, J., Luke, C., & Ascione,), pp.963-975. Available at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=/0886-2605^28^2914L.963[aid=1172779] [Accessed 7 May. 2014]. Bryant, C. D. (1979). The zoological connection: Animal-related human behavior. Social Forces, 58, 399-421. Flynn, C. P. (1999). Animal abuse in childhood and later support for interpersonal violence in families. Society & Animals, 7, 161-172. Galtung, J. (1990) Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research. August 1990 vol. 27 no. 3 291-305 Herzog H. (2010). Some We Love, Some We Eat” Harper Perennial, HarperCollins, New York. Nussbaum, M. & Sunstein, C. (2004). Animal rights: current debates and new directions. Oxford University Press, Oxford New York. Serpell, J. (1996). In the Company of Animals: A Study of Human-Animal Relationships. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Read More