Unpacking the ‘Meat Paradox’: An Exploration of Neutralization Techniques Employed in Justifying Animal Consumption

• In Event: Conservation, Green Criminology, and the Study of Non-Human Crime Victims

Abstract

Scholars have coined the term ‘meat paradox’ to refer to people’s general dislike for hurting non-human animals but like for eating them. Indeed, laws which criminalize animal abuse, and the 2018 federal ban on dog and cat slaughter and consumption, reflect social values surrounding compassion and non-violence. Yet, a vast minority of Americans maintain fully vegetarian or vegan diets. Building on Agnew’s theory of animal abuse, critical animal studies, and non-speciesist criminology, this project explores how techniques of neutralization are employed in the justification of animal consumption. Mainstream conceptualizations of animal abuse designate only behaviors which are socially unacceptable as abusive, however scholars like Agnew (1998) and others challenge this notion. While deeming socially acceptable behaviors (like meat eating) as abusive may be uncomfortable for some, they, too, inflict serious harm and are worthy of scientific exploration. Data is drawn from four Reddit posts discussing individuals’ reasons for, or justifications of, meat eating. The purposive sample includes 259 Reddit comments (totaling about 14,000 words), and qualitative content analysis is employed. Results, implications, and opportunities for future research are discussed. This work builds on the relatively under-studied area of non-speciesist criminology to bridge the areas of academia and animal advocacy.

Author

• Rachelle Wetsman, CUNY Graduate Center / John Jay College of Criminal Justice