La socióloga Marta Puerta es autora del artículo “The legitimization of carnism and speciesism”, en la Revista de Biótica y Derecho de la Universidad de Barcelona. Marta ha centrado su estudio en estudiantes de universidad. En esta entrevista nos da algunas claves sobre en qué se basa la juventud para legitimar la explotación animal y cómo actuar en la educación para fomentar el respeto.
Why did you decide to focus your research on university students?
I wanted to focus my study on young people because they are the age group that shows the greatest concern for animal rights and veganism in Spain. Older people have lived for too many years with the idea that animals should be raised for our consumption and satisfaction. Moreover, many of them have witnessed slaughter. The same cannot be said of the younger population, who are increasingly distanced from the animals they consume, and therefore I wanted to focus on understanding their reasons. And, in this sense, the university population seemed like a good starting point.
What is carnism?
Carnism is an ideology that supports and justifies meat consumption. The term was coined by American psychologist Melany Joy to emphasize that such consumption is not merely a matter of nutrition or survival. Just as referring to vegans as plant-based consumers would be quite inaccurate, the term omnivore is also inappropriate since it addresses biological factors and encompasses both vegans and carnists. Human beings are omnivores. We can eat practically anything, but choosing which products to eat and which to avoid is a social choice. People who consume animal products do so because they do not consider the interests of the animals they eat to be important. They believe their right to decide what to eat is far more relevant than the right to life of other animals. Thus, these speciesist ideas reinforce the carnist system and make it possible.
What is the objective of your study?
The aim of this study is to analyze the justifications people use to legitimize animal consumption. In this case, we have focused on the justifications offered by university students. However, while further studies would be needed to confirm this, the justifications offered by other groups are likely to be quite similar, given that meat consumption is a widespread practice and one that few people question.
Are there similar studies whose subject of study is younger students?
I have no record of that.
What arguments do the students present to explain their consumption of animal-based foods?
Los principales argumentos que presentan las personas entrevistadas para explicar el consumo de alimentos de origen animal se relacionan con la necesidad, el gusto, la economía y la comodidad.
The argument of necessity falls apart on its own merits since, although some people claim that consuming animals is a matter of survival, as their discourse progresses, they state that they know people who do not consume animal products and that, therefore, it is possible to survive without such consumption.
Do these arguments agree with your conclusion?
Partly yes and partly no. It's true that people consider eating animal products cheaper, more convenient, and pleasurable because they like the taste; sometimes they even claim that we need meat to survive. But in reality, it's the lack of empathy towards the animals we consume that allows us to do so.
How do you think teachers can foster empathy in students?
Since a lack of empathy towards the animals we consume is largely what allows their consumption, if we want a more just and anti-speciesist society that respects the lives of all animals, we must cultivate this forgotten empathy. It's not an easy task, but we can accomplish it with simple gestures like remembering where our meat comes from, even though it may seem obvious. Animal consumption is so deeply ingrained in modern societies that, although it's clear we must kill animals to eat meat, this information is often overlooked and not given much thought.
Furthermore, we must eliminate speciesism from our own language and point it out in others when we witness it. Phrases so deeply ingrained in popular culture as "killing two birds with one stone" or "every dog has its day" must be eliminated, since language directly influences our perception of the world.