The animal welfare battle: the production of affected ignorance in the Swedish meat industry debate

Abstract

The Swedish animal welfare debate has for years focused on the meat industry, which sees animals not as sentient creatures but as production factors and commodities to be economically exploited. Although animal rights organizations have tried to change the meat industry and consumer behaviour, meat consumption is increasing. This could be explained as 'affected ignorance' generated by what one already knows but does not want to hear about. This paper discusses how various actors, such as meat industry companies, food retailers, and social movement organizations, frame animal welfare in the media debate with the use of discourses, which are important for producing or discouraging affected ignorance. The paper examines a discursive battle in which actors draw on various discourses over time but also hijack opponents' discourses. This use of discourses seems to blur the debate and confuse people and they will continue to eat meat from factory-farmed animals.

Uncoupling Meat From Animal Slaughter and Its Impacts on Human-Animal Relationships

“…If such a disruption to our food chain eventuates, a change in human-animal relationships is likely to occur, as for the first-time, it will be possible to challenge the concept of necessary animal suffering and killing without compromising meat consumption. Pressure from the animal production industry has been limiting the farm animal protection laws (Schwartz, 2020), which commonly prohibit only unnecessary suffering of farm animals. This is designed to shield harmful practices in animal production systems from inclusion in the list of crimes against animals, or even more deeply, from the very recognition of farm animal suffering and abuse.…”

Animal activism in the business school: Using fierce compassion for teaching critical and positive perspectives

“…Through a combination of film, scholarly literature and discussion, we addressed the affected ignorance of the topic (Schwartz, 2020; Williams, 2008) with engaged scholarship (Hoffman, 2021b) as a form of academic activism. We used a critical animal studies perspective to challenge the socially-sanctioned speciesism 4 resting on ‘the justifications and cost-benefit analysis provided by the [food] industry’ as well as ‘the physical and psychological distance created between the consumers and the sites of animal slaughter’ (Gröling, 2014; 89–92).…”

“…She reflected on the shared responsibility of being courageous to speak up and raise questions about food ethics as well as the responsibility of business professionals to be more mindful of suffering in decision-making and processes. Embodying the role of a moral agent (Moody-Adams, 1994) with a moral responsibility to shift societal affected ignorance (Schwartz, 2020; Williams, 2008), she stated that, ‘we should all do something about this!’ Another student’s apparent motivation for positive action stretched to his professional interests as he hoped to undertake a master’s thesis to create positive impact for animals in business. From these comments and observations, it appeared some compassionate responses were prompted as participants moved beyond initial (distressing) emotions and some used their passionate emotions (such as anger) to fuel motivation for action and change.…”

Writing with the bitches

“…Throughout history, humans have assumed a dominant position of power in relation to other animal(s), and power dynamics continue to shape these relations. Traditionally, humans have objectified animals for exploitative or capitalist purposes (Schwartz, 2020). In contrast to animals treated as production factors, things, or commodities to be exploited (Schwartz, 2020), certain humanised animals – such as canines – have in some cases become loyal companions and close friends who are compassionately cared for.…”