How Normal Meat Becomes Stranger as Cultured Meat Becomes More Normal; Ambivalence and Ambiguity Below the Surface of Behavior

Abstract

Although most people still behave like happy meat eaters, there are good reasons to think that many are in fact ambivalent about meat. Following up on earlier findings, in this paper we describe how, in focus groups, cultured meat triggered much discussion about meat, especially among older people. While young people wondered whether they would eat cultured meat products, older people thought about diet changes in a historical perspective and wondered if and how cultured meat might become a societal success. Beneath the surface of everyday behavior, in which they followed mainstream norms, many of our research participants harbored moral concerns and in various ways expressed an interest in collective change. Reflecting on the focus group discussions, we suggest, first, that appreciating the important role of ambivalence in processes of moral change requires rethinking relations between ambivalence and morality. Second, the entanglement of ambivalence with ambiguity increases the "fluidity" of such processes of change: when it is no longer clear what exactly meat is, the meanings and experiences of eating it also become unsettled. This has implications for thinking about morality in times of change. Studying consumer choices cannot do justice to processes of ambivalence and ambiguity below the surface of behavior. More generally, the idea that morality resides in making up our minds about clear moral choices gives way to the need to become skilled, collectively as well as individually, in dealing imaginatively with ambivalence and ambiguity.

Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat: An Updated Review (2018–2020)

“…Previous research has indicated that cultured meat would likely be more appealing to younger people than older people [12,39,41], and new data appears to confirm this [15,28,31,33,35]. Van der Weele and Driessen [37] observed that older people tended to think about cultured meat in terms of the implied societal transition, whereas younger people tended to think about it in terms of their own consumption.…”

“…The relative salience of societal vs. personal perspectives may differ for different people. In Dutch focus groups, Van der Weele and Driessen [37] report that younger participants tended to prioritize whether and how they would interact with cultured meat personally, whereas older participants tended to be more reflective on what a societal transition towards cultured meat might look like. Likewise, Bryant et al [21] found that different attitudes were associated with cultured meat acceptance in different countries-while disgust predicted rejection in the US, a positive ethical evaluation predicted acceptance in India.…”

“…Our previous review found some comparisons with other alternative proteins [12,39], though these were far more common in more recent literature. While cultured meat has garnered attention for its novelty and revolutionary potential, some commentators have worried that a focus on novel technological solutions could cause researchers and resources to overlook other more immediately available alternatives [37,43].…”

“…One of the major focuses of analysis by Van der Weele and Driessen [37] is the deep ambivalence participants reported towards meat from animals. It appears that thinking about cultured meat triggers reflections on existing meat production methods-as the authors noted, many people who appear to accept animal farming are in fact deeply conflicted about the morality of killing animals for food.…”

“…Ambivalence about the morality of meat consumption was the main theme emerging from Van der Weele and Driessen's [37] focus groups, and avoiding animal suffering and slaughter was one of the major perceived benefits of cultured meat observed in previous research (Bryant and Barnett, 2018). By reflecting on the production methods for producing cultured meat, participants were invited to reflect on the production methods for conventional meat.…”