I would first like to talk about Chapter 9, Pachirat. In this Chapter Pachirat is concluding
his research as an undercover worker in a slaughterhouse. He is also most importantly talking
about the politics of sight. Pachirat
suggest something that is very interesting when he says what if you were
responsible for killing animals for your own use, would you be able to do it?
What if every individual was responsible for killing animals for food,
clothing, or anything else we need to survive. I know if this were the case I would not be able to do
it. I could not shoot a cow in the
head while looking into its sad confused eyes. And because this fact is true for most people we have such
things as slaughterhouses. Where
the majority of the killing is placed on the hands of one individual, the
knocker. This means that out of
the 800 workers in the factory they actually believe that they are not apart of
the killing that goes on every twelve seconds. They are simply placing livers on hooks to be cooled in
freezers, and exported to distant places (238). Why are people so willing to put the blame on this one
individual when in fact everyone who works in this slaughterhouse is
responsible for the death of every cow that comes through the doors? As I am writing this post I just
thought to myself how easy it was for me to put the blame on the individuals
who work at slaughterhouses for killing cows and other animals, when in fact I
am also responsible for the death of animals. I eat meat regularly and have not even hesitated while at
the Coop to order a grilled chicken sandwich since we have started this topic
in class. Why was it so easy for
me to put the blame on other people?
Is it the idea of distancing that Pachirat states that makes it so easy
for me to put the blame of the slaughtering of animals on people other than
myself. “Distinctions between
visible/invisible, plain/ hidden, and open/confined that, in theory keep
repugnant activities hidden and therefore make them tolerable” (245). I believe that because I am not on the
kill floor participating in the actual killing of animals that I feel less
responsible for the death of animals.
I am not saying it is right but that is why I feel less responsible.
When I think of the multiple numbers of advertisements I see
a day and the amount of commercials one is exposed to it is hard to not be a
consumerist society. We are
flooded with clothes and toys that we are told we must have. Our favorite actors and actress promote
these new and exciting items and suddenly we want them all the more because we
feel like if we have these objects we will then be closer to them and feel more
important. When things such as
advertisements and commercials are apart of our everyday lives one can get
distracted. “To increase their
capacity for consumption, consumers must never be given rest. They need to be exposed to new
temptations in order to be kept in a state of a constantly seething, never,
wilting excitation and, indeed, in a state of suspicion and disaffection”
(314). This quote makes me think
of the movie What Women Want with Mel
Gibson. In this movie Mel Gibson
works for an advertisement agency and was recently assigned a project where he
will be advertising particularly to women. Lucky for Mel he has the ability to read women’s minds and
learns everything that he needs to know to sell them his products. Catering the majority of his advertisements
and products to the needs and desires of women in order to get them to buy his
products. The point I am making is
that as consumers we are in a never-ending battle to fight off useless products
we don’t need but are told we want.
Our every move is watched and studied in order to find a way to cater to
us.
By definition a consumer is a person who consumes, and to
consume means using things up: eating them, wearing them, playing with them and
otherwise causing them to satisfy one’s needs or desires (311). According to Beilharz to consume is to
destroy. In the course of consumption,
the consumed things cease to exist, literally or spiritually. In the article BIG FOOT by Michael
Specter he points out the fact that brands our competing for our attention and
will attempt any way possible for us to buy their products. “In Britain, Marks
& Spencer has set a goal of recycling all its waste, and intends to become
carbon natural by 2012. Kraft
Foods recently began a power plant if a New York plant with methane produced by
adding bacteria to whey, a byproduct of cream cheese. Not to be outdone,
Sara Lee will deploy solar panels to run one of its bakeries in New Mexico”
(44). The key words I picked out
of this sentence were not to be outdone. This to me means that these companies
are not becoming more environmentally friendly because they think it is good
for the environment, but that they are hoping to attract more consumers to buy
their products in doing so. I’m
not sure how I feel about this because yes they are becoming more
environmentally friendly but they are doing it for the wrong reason; does this
take away from the fact that they did it at all?
Quincy raises an interesting question when she says, “I’m not sure how I feel about this because yes they are becoming more environmentally friendly but they are doing it for the wrong reason; does this take away from the fact that they did it at all?” Whether the motive degrades the action is a matter of opinion, but I think it’s very important to realize what agency the motive provides us. If the heads of companies made business decisions based on their particular set of morals, we as consumers would be entirely subject to those. But because consumer demand determines business decisions within capitalism, we have an opportunity to influence what is available to us and how it is produced. Our purchase power can act as somewhat of a vote. We all know that our one specific vote isn’t going to change an election, but still over half the country votes in presidential elections. If over half of the country chose to make a political statement by purchasing only products that aligned with their values, it seems reasonable to me that we could expect a response just as huge as the peaceful changing of our nation’s leaders every four or eight years according to our votes. When Tesco’s CEO discovered that “[c]ustomers want us to develop ways to take complicated carbon calculations and preset them simply,” he promised to do exactly that, even if a carbon label would not be as simple as one might hope (Specter 44).
ReplyDeleteBetween our discussion last week in class and the conclusion of chapter 9, the idea of sight has played a major part in viewing the moralities and immoralities of slaughtering animals. We as the consumer don’t believe that we are not wrong because our view of the act is second hand. We are not in the Slaughter houses actually partaking in the acts of killing and preparing the animals for consumption therefore most of us, not all don’t have that connection with the act that would force us to change our views on eating meat. Personally I do believe talking part in the act of killing and preparing the meat would make me feel differently about eating meat but I feel like it simply wouldn’t be enough. I think the connection between me and the animal in the room wouldn’t outweigh my view of viewing an animal as nothing more than sustenance for me. I do believe with some of my classmate’s arguments who say that we are all responsible for the act of animal killing. The person physically killing the animal is responsible, the person cleaning and freezing it is responsible, and we as the consumer wanting the demand for meat are responsible. However I believe that demand for the meat that we eat will forever outweigh the option to not kill the animal, or go in different routes of becoming vegan or only eating properly raised animals. Now I’m not trying to offend anyone and I don’t think that there is anything wrong with being vegetarian but personally I love to eat meat. It could be because society has told me that eating meat is a necessity but whatever the case is, my view of eating meat will stay the same.
ReplyDeleteI haven’t posted yet during this section of the class because I’m having a hard time figuring out my thoughts about everything we’ve read. I’ve been a pescatarian (vegetarian, but I eat fish) for the past year and a half, but I’ve never really eaten a lot of meat. One of the biggest reasons that I stopped eating meat was because it just grosses me out. Humans have skin, meat on our bones, fat, muscle- just like cows, chickens, and pigs. When I look at a piece of meat on a plate I can only see the living creature that it used to be. I think this probably stems from the fact that I’ve grown up with animals my entire life- dogs and cats, but I’ve also been horseback riding since I was 4. I think the “total visibility” that Pachirat talks about in chapter nine really speaks to this. If everyone were exposed to the killing of animals, or even made the effort to know what slaughterhouses were like, would things change? I think this idea of transparency translates to everything we’ve talked about in class thus far. If we could see what happened in slaughterhouses, or in prisons, or in torture cells, would there be political change? We have seen some sort of change in our torture policies and some change in the prison system, but still not enough. Do we need more transparency? Would it help? With Pachirat’s book, he is attempting to shine a light on the horrible nature of slaughterhouses and the meat industry in our country. But how many people will read this book? How many people will read this book and decide not to eat meat? I think transparency can only go so far- we are too set in our ways as a society to make a real effort to change.
ReplyDelete