Knowing cows: Transformative mobilizations of human and non‐human bodies in an emotionography of the slaughterhouse

Abstract

This ‘emotionography’ of the slaughterhouse elucidates how the identities of both human and non‐human individuals are constructed by line and lairage workers. Hegemonic masculine ideals that underpin slaughterhouse work mean that the emotions of workers as well as the emotional experience of cattle are either denied, diminished or repressed. Based on fieldwork in an Irish slaughterhouse, I articulate how the industrial slaughter of animals entangles human and non‐human life in metamorphic processes that seek to diminish the emotionality of individuals, maintaining the boundary between human/non‐human animals. These transformations simultaneously pacify the emotional toll of killing non‐human individuals and reinforce perceptions of cows as sellable, killable and edible in the commodification of bovine bodies. Amidst the relative absence of emotions in slaughterhouse ethnographies, this article reveals how emotions emerge, erupt and confound the act of slaughtering cattle for slaughterhouse workers unsettling categorizations of masculinity and ‘animals as food’.

Stigma Beyond Levels: Advancing Research on Stigmatization

“…Whereas janitors are classified as "dirty workers" because of their proximity to physical dirt, McMurray and Ward proposed that distress line workers are classified as "dirty" because of their proximity to toxic or negative emotions (i.e., "emotional dirt") when working with people who are suicidal, upset, or abusive. Other examples include workers in rape crisis centers (Zilber, 2002) and slaughterhouses (McLoughlin, 2019), and border control agents (Rivera, 2015). Scholars have shown that bearing an emotional stigma can negatively affects people's wellbeing (e.g., workers in slaughterhouses, see McLoughlin, 2019).…”

“…Other examples include workers in rape crisis centers (Zilber, 2002) and slaughterhouses (McLoughlin, 2019), and border control agents (Rivera, 2015). Scholars have shown that bearing an emotional stigma can negatively affects people's wellbeing (e.g., workers in slaughterhouses, see McLoughlin, 2019). In addition, while there is only limited research on how emotional stigma impacts organizations or industries, it is reasonable to anticipate that organizations with an emotional stigma (e.g., toxic emotional culture, see Frost, 2007) would have lowered employee engagement, reduced productivity, or high levels of turnover.…”

Human–Animal Relations in Business and Society: Advancing the Feminist Interpretation of Stakeholder Theory

“…Parmar et al ( 2010 ) emphasise the interrelatedness of actors as the basis for management when discussing stakeholdership. In the instrumentally abstract ‘no care’ human–animal relationship (Connolly & Cullen, 2018 ), animals are purely seen as raw materials, objects or ‘animals-as-food’ (McLoughlin, 2019 ), rather than sentient beings. Here, conditions for animal stakeholdership are limited due to low emotional and social human–animal bonds.…”

The Psychological Impact of Slaughterhouse Employment: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Two studies examined how workers coped with the specific act of slaughtering of animals. McLoughlin (2018) posited that SHWs needed to conform to hegemonic masculinity in order to successfully complete their work. The reasoning underpinning this conformity was that emotions impeded their work, caused internal conflict, and lowered their status in the eyes of their peers.…”