Dominion, Stewardship and Reconciliation in the Accounts of Ordinary People Eating Animals

Abstract

Despite the growing popularity of vegetarian foods and diets, the vast majority of people in North America and other parts of the affluent world still eat meat. This article explores what ordinary people think about eating animals and how they navigate the ethical questions inherent in that praxis. Drawing from interviews with 24 people living in Ottawa, Canada, the study shows how the concepts of dominion, stewardship and reconciliation manifest in the everyday lives of ordinary people as models for human relations with nonhuman others and the environment. These ideas resonate in the lives of ordinary people, both religious and nonreligious, and entwine as people try to make sense of how to live with the fact that their everyday food consumption causes suffering and harm. This study shows that in the context of everyday life, dominion, stewardship and reconciliation are not alternative views, but connected to each other, and serve different purposes. The study highlights a need for analyses that constitute practical ways to renew the broken relationships within creation and which incorporate nonreligious people into the scope of analyses that focus on the relationships between humans and nonhuman creation.

A structured literature review of the meat paradox

“…To conclude this section, culture seemingly plays an important role in the MP, sup porting Rothgerber (2020). Additionally, culture may influence the treatment of 'food' animals (Salonen, 2019) and be used to justify meat consumption (Oleschuk et al, 2019).…”

“…Strategies can also co-occur. For example, people can state humans are hierarchically superior to animals (hierarchical justification) and deem this human superiority 'natural' ('natural' justification;Salonen, 2019). 4) Some strategies divide into substrategies.…”

“…The '4Ns', the second most common direct strategy, describe meat being justified as 'natural', 'normal', 'necessary' and/or 'nice' (Joy, 2011;Piazza et al, 2015). 'Natural' justifications emphasise meat's perceived 'naturalness', with arguments referring to hu man-animal hierarchy (Rothgerber, 2013), 'survival of the fittest' (Salonen, 2019) or the 'circle of life' (Bettany & Kerrane, 2018). 'Normal' justifications emphasise meat's per ceived 'normality', with arguments referring to cultural (Oleschuk et al, 2019;Sahakian et al, 2020) and/or religious (Allcorn & Ogletree, 2018) norms.…”

“…Firstly, people used cultural repertoires to situate and explain their meat consumption (Oleschuk et al, 2019), such as by presenting meat as part of one's cultur al identity. Secondly, people demonstrate cross-cultural meat consumption differences (Salonen, 2019). For example, a participant highly familiar with Aboriginal cultures believed in honouring animals killed for meat, a viewpoint perceived by the participant as uncommon within Western cultures.…”

“…However, two articles qualitatively evidenced the role of religious justifications. For example, participants linked meat consumption to God's abundant provision of food (Salonen, 2019) and emphasised ethical animal slaughter within Islam (Oleschuk et al, 2019). Participants also emphasised meat's necessity within their religion (e.g., traditions; Salonen, 2019), again highlighting how disengagement strategies ('necessary' and religious justifications) co-occur.…”