Why We Love and Exploit Animals

Bridging Insights from Academia and Advocacy

Kristof Dhont, Gordon Hodson, Kristof Dhont, Gordon Hodson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351181426
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This unique book brings together research and theorizing on human-animal relations, animal advocacy, and the factors underlying exploitative attitudes and behaviors towards animals.

Why do we both love and exploit animals? Assembling some of the world's leading academics and with insights and experiences gleaned from those on the front lines of animal advocacy, this pioneering collection breaks new ground, synthesizing scientific perspectives and empirical findings. The authors show the complexities and paradoxes in human-animal relations and reveal the factors shaping compassionate versus exploitative attitudes and behaviors towards animals. Exploring topical issues such as meat consumption, intensive farming, speciesism, and effective animal advocacy, this book demonstrates how we both value and devalue animals, how we can address animal suffering, and how our thinking about animals is connected to our thinking about human intergroup relations and the dehumanization of human groups.

This is essential reading for students, scholars, and professionals in the social and behavioral sciences interested in human-animal relations, and will also strongly appeal to members of animal rights organizations, animal rights advocates, policy makers, and charity workers.

1

Loving and Exploiting Animals

An introduction

Kristof Dhont and Gordon Hodson

In the summer of 2012, Steve and Derek, until then living a fairly ordinary life in Ontario (Canada), adopted a new pet animal. They named her Esther. Weighing four pounds and just a couple of weeks old, Esther instantly stole their hearts, and not much later, also the hearts of hundreds of thousands of others all over the world. It took Esther less than two years to become a social media star, with presently close to one and a half million followers on Facebook.

Esther is neither a dog nor a cat, but a pig, now weighing 650 pounds. Little did Steve and Derek know at that time what to expect from Esther. Not in the least bit did they expect that Esther would turn their lives upside down. For Steve and Derek, Esther was not considered a food animal but instead one of their pets, alongside their cats and dogs. This recategorization of pigs into a different group of animals caused a mental shift in their thinking about animals overall. By taking care of Esther they soon realized how clever and playful she is. Even more, they came to realize that Esther was not alone but rather that all pigs have unique personalities, sophisticated mental abilities, and needs. In 2014, Steve and Derek founded the Happily Ever Esther Farm Sanctuary (Ontario, Canada), where they take care of dozens of farm animals rescued from being slaughtered or other exploitative circumstances. They made a conscious choice to love and not exploit animals, and to dedicate their lives to caring compassionately for both companion and farm animals.

Although the number of farm sanctuaries is growing, Steve and Derek are vastly outnumbered by people who either go to great lengths to rationalize their involvement in the exploitation of animals or have never questioned their involvement. They represent an intriguing yet rare case in a world where we are socialized from the day we are born to live with the paradoxical societal norm of simultaneously loving and exploiting animals. Indeed, from an early age we have been taught that harming animals is morally wrong, and the majority of people find it emotionally disturbing to watch an animal suffering or being maltreated. Many people are genuinely captivated when observing a flock of starlings in flight or a 15-meter humpback whale jumping out of the water. We feel moved or emotionally lifted when our pet dog, cat, or backyard chickens greet us in the morning, and we enjoy watching wildlife documentaries (e.g., Planet Earth).

At the same time, we exploit animals in numerous different ways on a systemic level and on a massive scale, including for consumption, clothes, entertainment, sports, cosmetic tests, medical experiments, pet breeding, and warfare. Consider for instance the animal agriculture industry, which is responsible for the suffering of the largest number of animals inflicted by humans. In the USA alone, more than nine billion land animals are slaughtered for food every year (Sanders, 2018). Put differently, if you would start counting now, approximately 1000 animals have been killed by the time you were even able to finish reading this sentence (see also https://animalclock.org). Such numbers represent an enormous amount of animal suffering and are difficult to grasp. Now also think about how much energy, water, and land this industry requires to raise such gargantuan numbers of animals for the production of meat and other animal products. The negative environmental impact of animal agriculture is vast and now undeniable, being one of the key factors driving the loss of biodiversity, deforestation, water pollution and responsible for excessive water and energy use (e.g., Eshel, Shepon, Makov, & Milo, 2014; Godfray et al. 2018).

Animal agriculture is also one of the biggest contributors to climate change, with major papers recently published in the premier science outlets (Science; Nature; PNAS; Lancet) documenting how meat and dairy consumption account for more greenhouse gases than all forms of transportation combined (e.g., McKnight, 2014; Springman, Godfray, Rayner, & Scarborough, 2016; Tilman & Clark, 2015; Willet et al., 2019). To combat the climate crisis, monumental changes are needed, including the cutting back of red meat by more than 80 percent (Willet et al., 2019). But global demand for meat is at an all-time high. Worryingly, the actions we need to take are in direct conflict with the actions we actually take. We careen toward the destruction of our planet in large part due to our voracious appetites for the consumption of animals, while simultaneously professing to love animals. What can explain this great disconnect, arguably one of the most pressing contradictions in human behavior? How is it possible that we find it morally problematic to harm animals, yet also be directly or indirectly involved in harming animals on a daily basis? Why do we love and exploit animals? The answer to this question is not straightforward and must be explored from different angles and disciplines. This is precisely the purpose of this book.

Why we love and exploit animals is the central theme of the present book and runs as a thread through the entire package. This book consolidates the cross-disciplinary developments in a single and truly unique collection by bringing together (a) state-of-the-art contemporary research from social and behavioral sciences providing insights on the factors underpinning compassionate and exploitative attitudes and behaviors towards animals; (b) current views and hotly debated topics related to the ethics of eating, treating, and exploiting animals; and (c) accumulated insights from professionals and practitioners in the field of vegan and animal rights advocacy, along with the implications of research findings for their work and for social policy. We have assembled some of the world’s leading academics, best-selling authors, and well-positioned animal advocates. All have influenced and advanced recent theoretical and practical developments in our understanding of people’s thinking about and behavior towards animals, with many being pioneers in their field, with their work spanning decades. All have contributed cutting-edge research and/or have articulated revolutionary ideas.

By deliberately inviting authors from different backgrounds, academic disciplines, and outside of academia, we ensured that this diversity of perspectives would not result in one overarching or consistent message across chapters. Rather, you will discover different, at times clashing, ideas and conclusions from different authors. Bringing this variety of ideas together was purposefully done in order to facilitate critical thinking and challenge existing ideas.

We recognize that a substantial number of contributions have been written by authors from our own field, providing strong empirical bases in social, moral, and political psychology. Yet the book also has an explicit interdisciplinary scope, bridging psychology, sociology, and philosophy. On a broader level, the book uniquely bridges the gap between academics and practitioners/advocates by including contributions from leading authors and figures in the animal advocacy movement. In doing so, we emphasize the importance of connecting academics with advocates to increase the relevance and impact of both fields. Below, we provide an overview of the contributions to this book.

Contributions to this book

In Chapter 2, Brock Bastian and Catherine Amiot focus on the dynamic interplay between the extent to which people identify with animals on the one hand, and the extent to which people distance themselves from animals on the other. The intense psychological connections that people build with animals, but also the distance between humans and animals, represent key factors in shaping people’s moral concerns and behaviors towards animals. As the authors argue, this dynamic shapes our own identities, the way we see ourselves, and, critically, the choices we make about both animal and human welfare issues.

The interconnection between attitudes towards animals and human outgroups is also of central importance in the next chapter. In Chapter 3, Kristof Dhont, Gordon Hodson, Ana Leite, and Alina Salmen specifically concentrate on the psychology of speciesism and address the question whether speciesism can be considered a type of prejudice and intergroup bias comparable to other types of prejudices and biases towards human groups (e.g., sexism and racism). They examine the common ideological belief systems underpinning different types of biases, highlighting the role of dominance desires and preferences for inequality in both human intergroup and human-animal relations. In discussing the parallels between different types of intergroup biases and biases towards animals, they consider the potential negative implications of such comparisons for animal advocacy and discuss the value of implementing experience- and behavior-based interventions in animal advocacy campaigns.

In Chapter 4, Jessica Pierce presents a thought-provoking discussion about the current state of animal welfare science, and how this research field systematically fails to seriously consider the interests of the animals in the treatment of captive animals. Indeed, drawing on her work with Marc Bekoff, Pierce highlights that even the field of animal welfare science typically puts the interest of humans first; this serves to legitimize animal exploitation within the different industries profiting from it (e.g., industrial farming, research laboratories, zoos) rather than meaningfully improving the lives of animals. A paradigm shift is needed, she argues, to transform the science of welfare into a science of well-being that incorporates new ethical principles, where animals are free from human captivity and from human-induced suffering.

In Chapter 5, Gordon Hodson, Kristof Dhont, and Megan Earle consider the impact of people’s distorted thinking about animals, critically highlighting the implications of devaluing animals for how we think about other human groups. Specifically, relying on recent empirical research, the authors argue that considering animals to be of lower value than humans fuels the animalistic dehumanization of people belonging to another social group (e.g., ethnic minority group), which in turn leads to hostility and prejudice towards these other groups. They further expand this scope by considering the implications of people’s beliefs about animals and meat consumption habits, for how people portray and treat vegans and vegetarians, who, as a social minority group, suffer prejudice, discrimination, and social isolation. The bottom line is that our thinking about animals is systematically connected to our thinking about human groups in ways that facilitate the exploitation and/or marginalization of both animals and human groups.

The idea that our thinking about animals is closely intertwined with our thinking about human outgroups is also manifested in the rich repertoire of animal metaphors that people use to describe other people. This is the central topic of Chapter 6, where Nick Haslam, Elise Holland, and Michelle Stratemeyer explore the psychology of animal metaphors and how such metaphors can be used to express praise or love for someone, but also (and even more frequently) to marginalize, dehumanize, or derogate others. Clearly, perceiving other people and social groups (ethnic or gender groups) in animalistic terms appears to be a widespread and often an automatic tendency in social perception, with potential detrimental consequences for how social groups are being treated. The dehumanization of people is also the focus in Chapter 7, where Vanessa Woods and Brian Hare focus on a specific type of dehumanization, namely the phenomenon of simianization, where people, especially Black people, are animalistically dehumanized by comparing them to great apes. Taking a historical perspective and citing sources dating back from the transatlantic slave trade, they convincingly illustrate the disturbing emotional relationship that humans have built with great apes. The close resemblance that we share with great apes has been a source of fascination, but at the same time it also elicits aversion and disgust as the result of apes being perceived as too humanlike. As the authors argue, precisely because of this aversive reaction, simianization has been a particularly powerful and popular form of dehumanization to denigrate and derogate other people.

Several chapters in this book specifically focus on meat consumption and people’s distorted thinking about food animals relative to other types of animals. In Chapter 8, Jared Piazza addresses the question why it is so difficult to think ethically about our use of animals as food. He reviews empirical research documenting the disconnection between meat products and the animals killed for these products as well as the role of people’s biased moral thinking about food animals and the rationalizations that sustain meat consumption. As Piazza argues, this disconnection allows meat eaters to love meat while at the same time being equally empathic as vegans in response to the suffering of farmed animals. Next, in Chapter 9 Christopher Holden and Harold Herzog zoom in on a specific yet powerful factor that distorts our thinking about animals, namely our perceptions of what is natural or unnatural. Specifically, the authors discuss how the belief that what is (perceived as) natural must be good acts unconsciously as a moral heuristic that biases people’s moral judgements. Holden and Herzog apply this idea to the perception of animals and offer a newly developed scale (i.e., the Animal Naturalness Scale) to measure how people perceive the naturalness of animals in different situations and across categories, such as domesticated animals, animals in captivity or in the wild, and genetically modified animals. They find that people vary greatly in their evaluations of animal naturalness across different categories and that such perceptions are systematically associated with animal welfare concerns.

In Chapter 10, former executive director of Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) Jon Bockman focuses on how to effectively reduce animal suffering. Relying on the principles of effective altruism, Bockman evaluates different domains of animal suffering (i.e., animals in the wild, animals in research, companion animals, and animals raised for food) in terms of scale, neglect, and tractability to learn how people can help the largest number of animals in the most effective way. Based on his careful analysis, Bockman reveals that helping farmed animals results in the biggest gains for animals overall. That is, farmed animal advocacy is identified as the most effective cause area. As discussed by Bockman, it is yet unclear, however, which are the most impactful interventions to help farmed animals. This highlights the need for more systematic research testing the effectiveness of different animal advocacy strategies.

The difficulties with developing successful strategies to change meat consumption behavior and tackle farm animal suffering become very apparent in the next two chapters, where the authors continue the psychological exploration of the paradox between being able to both eat animals and claim to love animals. Both the chapter of Steve Loughnan and Thomas Davies and that of Hank Rothgerber reveal that humans are psychologically well equipped with strong social and personal defence mechanisms that prevent them from feeling concerned about their meat consumption. In Chapter 11, Loughnan and Davies first map out the psychological factors at the level of the animals (eaten), the consumers (eaters), and the behavior (eating). In doing so, they also emphasize the importance of considering the broader social system that provides the context and incentives to preserve the status quo. In the next section, they move beyond the scope of animal exploitation and draw parallels with the other forms of exploitation, suggesting that animal exploitation is possibly “fundamental to other systems of oppression.” In Chapter 12, Rothgerber elaborates on this idea and provides an accessible and timely overview of the empirical evidence on cognitive dissonance related to meat consumption. Unique for his chapter, however, is the consideration of the experiences of children. More specifically, Rothgerber addresses whether meat eating by children, as with adults, induces a negative emotional tension (i.e., dissonance) due to the awareness that meat consumption involves the killing and suffering of animals. The author also speculates about the different dissonance reduction strategies adopted by children and points out the differences and similarities with the strategies adopted by adults. More broadly, Rothgerber’s discussion reveals that attitudes towards meat and animals among children is a largely unexplored area of research and highlights the potential effectiveness of focusing more on children both in research and in advocacy. Such a research approach would help us discover how our thinking about animals and meat is shaped from an early age. In terms of animal advocacy, targeting children in campaigns may prove to be essential for developing compassionate attitudes towards animals and to establish animal-friendly consumption behaviors, before the psychological rationalization infrastructure deeply entrenched in society takes over and makes it more difficult to change attitudes and behavior.

The societal context and many of the social factors that sustain and rationalize ani...