Maintaining Meat: Cultural Repertoires and the Meat Paradox in a Diverse Sociocultural Context

Abstract

Despite rising concerns about the meat industry and animal slaughter, meat consumption in Europe and North America remains relatively high, what has been called the “meat paradox.” In this article, we examine a diverse sample of Canadian meat eaters and vegetarians to build on earlier work on the psychological strategies people employ to justify eating meat. We analyze the explanations people give for meat eating within the context of what sociologists term cultural repertoires—the taken‐for‐granted, unarticulated scripts that inform actions. We distinguish between two types of repertoires: identity repertoires that have a basis in personal, embodied group identities and regularly draw from vivid first‐person experiences; and liberty repertoires that are more abstractly conceptualized and signal peoples' sense of their rights in social space. We find that these repertoires function in distinct ways, both in regard to how participants situated themselves within them, and in their capacity to facilitate active engagement with the ethical implications of conduct. Through these repertoires, we show how the meanings attributed to meat consumption are crucial for understanding its persistence in the face of strong reasons to change, while also advancing literature on cultural repertoires by highlighting their variability.

Dominion, Stewardship and Reconciliation in the Accounts of Ordinary People Eating Animals

“…The findings of this study give new insights for both social scientific and theological research. First, when it comes to social sciences, it is widely acknowledged that reducing meat consumption in the Western diet is pivotal for reasons related to public health, environmental issues and the wellbeing of animals (e.g., Allievi 2017; Godfray et al 2018;IPCC 2019;Adams 2016;Spiegel 2007;Bastian et al 2012;Oleschuk et al 2019). However, it is argued that the transition towards less meat-based diets is likely to require a profound societal change (Apostolidis and McLeay 2016, p. 75).…”

“…In addition to the ecological and health-related arguments, changing consumption patterns have been called for due to the harm and suffering that industrial meat production causes to nonhuman animals (cf. Adams 2016;Spiegel 2007;Bastian et al 2012;Oleschuk et al 2019). However, despite these concerns and notwithstanding the growing popularity of vegetarian foods and plant-based diets, the vast majority of people in North America and other parts of the affluent world still eat substantial amounts of meat (Oleschuk et al 2019;Niva et al 2017).…”

“…Adams 2016;Spiegel 2007;Bastian et al 2012;Oleschuk et al 2019). However, despite these concerns and notwithstanding the growing popularity of vegetarian foods and plant-based diets, the vast majority of people in North America and other parts of the affluent world still eat substantial amounts of meat (Oleschuk et al 2019;Niva et al 2017). This does not mean that people are altogether indifferent to the ecological, ethical and health-related impact of their food consumption practices.…”

“…Instead, there is a dilemmatic dynamic in food culture, often referred to as the meat paradox, where people care about themselves, the environment and animals and find their poor treatment problematic, but still continue to eat meat (cf. Oleschuk et al 2019;cf. Bastian et al 2012).…”

“…Furthermore, local, national and global food cultures impact on the types and amounts of meat consumption. A recent study found that when justifying meat consumption, people draw from cultural scripts that emphasise individual identity and consumer liberty (Oleschuk et al 2019). According to Apostolidis and McLeay (2016, p. 75), due to the special status meat holds in many cultures, reducing meat consumption in the Western diet is likely to require a profound societal transition.…”