Whaling and its controversies: Examining the attitudes of Japan's youth

Bowett, Julia; Hay, Pete

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2009.02.012

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Examples of such culturally specific practices include bull fights in Spain, consuming dogs in regions of China and South Korea, the dolphin drive hunt in Taji (Japan), and Norwegian and Icelandic whaling practices (e.g. Bowett & Hay, 2009;Wilson & Peden, 2015). Within each of those cultures, higher RWA is likely associated with more support for such culturally specific practices as an expression of endorsement of social conformity and traditions, a direction for future research.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common Ideological Roots of Speciesism and Generalized Ethnic Prejudice: The Social Dominance Human–Animal Relations Model (SD–HARM)

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research and theorizing suggest that desires for group-based dominance underpin biases towards both human outgroups and (non-human) animals. A systematic study of the common ideological roots of human-human and human-animal biases is, however, lacking. Three studies (in Belgium, UK, and USA) tested the Social Dominance HumanAnimal Relations Model (SD-HARM) proposing that Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is a key factor responsible for the significant positive association between ethnic outgroup attitudes and speciesist attitudes towards animals, even after accounting for other ideological variables (that possibly confound previous findings). Confirming our hypotheses, the results consistently demonstrated that SDO, more than right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), is a key factor connecting ethnic prejudice and speciesist attitudes. Furthermore, Studies 2 and 3 showed that both SDO and RWA are significantly related to perceived threat posed by vegetarianism (i.e., ideologies and diets minimizing harm to animals), but with SDO playing a focal role in explaining the positive association between threat perceptions and ethnic prejudice. Study 3 replicated this pattern, additionally including political conservatism in the model, itself a significant correlate of speciesism. Finally, a meta-analytic integration across studies provided robust support for SD-HARM and offers important insights into the psychological parallels between human intergroup and human-animal relations.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common Ideological Roots of Speciesism and Generalized Ethnic Prejudice: The Social Dominance Human–Animal Relations Model (SD–HARM)

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it is significant that many whale meat consumers in Korea do not openly assert opposition to the moratorium but actually assert their support for it. This contrasts with Japan, where opposition to the moratorium is openly expressed (Blok, 2008;Bowett and Hay, 2009). In the social context of Ulsan, the ''safety of bycatch'' concept provides a genuine perception of legitimacy to the practice of eating whale meat in restaurants.…”

Section: Evasionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The safety of bycatch: South Korean responses to the moratorium on commercial whaling

Tatar

2014

Journal of Marine and Island Cultures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When the global moratorium on commercial whaling was implemented in 1986, Korea prohibited whaling; however, there was no effort to build the capacity of social institutions to guide local residents to cooperate with the policy. Utilizing a social ecology approach, this research examines the practice of eating whale meat in Ulsan, South Korea, to illustrate the importance of culture for attaining the social acceptance of wildlife conservation policy. The cultural models which influence the consumption of whale meat are here classified as representing four distinct responses to the moratorium: opposition, resistance, evasion and support. The two most important changes are the public utilization of whale meat as a symbol of an endangered culture, and the reliance on meat procured legally from accidental entanglements of whales in fishing nets (cetacean bycatch). These cultural changes have a social function, which is to impart legitimacy and acceptance to the continued consumption of whale meat, from illegal as well as legal sources. Given the cultural acceptance of whale meat, I argue that it will not be possible to eradicate the illegal market through enforcement alone. Instead, the solution is to persuade local consumers of whale meat to cooperate with the moratorium. ª 2014 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Institution for Marine and Island Cultures,

show abstract

“…whales (Bowett and Hay 2009;Gross 2010), human overpopulation (Peterson, M. N. et al 2007a), housing sprawl (Pejchar et al 2007;Peterson, M. N. et al 2008), moral treatment of animals (Lunney 2012a,b), zoonotic diseases (Bidwell 2009), protected area establishment and management (Chan et al 2007;Robbins et al 2009;McShane et al 2011), forestry (Freudenburg et al 1998), agricultural expansion (Harvey et al 2008), and climate change (Duffy 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why transforming biodiversity conservation conflict is essential and how to begin.

Peterson¹,

Peterson²,

Peterson³

et al. 2013

Pac. Conserv. Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conserving biodiversity requires productive management of conflict. Currently, wildlife are often portrayed as conscious human antagonists, which must be fought. We suggest using the ‘comic corrective’ to experiment with ways to reframe human–human conflicts over wildlife management and wildlife damage. This requires a deep commitment to change, often made more palatable through humour. This effort to fight the use of the term human–wildlife conflict should not be interpreted as a call to reject human–human conflict as a useful conservation tool. Conservationists, who value wildlife, often misleadingly suggest that conservation can sidestep irreducible value differences and political processes that see proponents of different views as antagonists. Because democracies cannot function without dissent, we suggest that conservation biologists should embrace stakeholder conflicts over wildlife conservation as a way to improve decision making. In particular, we should challenge the view that wildlife are willfully antagonistic to people while recognizing conflict among humans over how biodiversity conservation should occur.

show abstract

Whaling and its controversies: Examining the attitudes of Japan's youth

Cited by 17 publications

References 14 publications

Common Ideological Roots of Speciesism and Generalized Ethnic Prejudice: The Social Dominance Human–Animal Relations Model (SD–HARM)

Common Ideological Roots of Speciesism and Generalized Ethnic Prejudice: The Social Dominance Human–Animal Relations Model (SD–HARM)

The safety of bycatch: South Korean responses to the moratorium on commercial whaling

Why transforming biodiversity conservation conflict is essential and how to begin.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About