SOCIOLOGY Cover Sheet - Undergraduate

MODULE: [SOC00064I-S1-A] Humans and ASSESSMENT: 3000 word essay

Other Animals

WORD COUNT: 2883

(If you exceed the word count, your work will be subject to penalties as outlined in your
programme handbook.) The word count for all written work completed for programme
modules (e.g. essays, assignments etc.) does not include the following: appendices,
bibliography/reference list, contents page, cover sheet or title page. In addition, but only for
written work completed for the modules ‘Social Interaction and Conversation Analysis’ and
‘Doctor-Patient Interaction’, conversation analysis data extracts are not included in the word
count. For all other modules, data extracts are included in the word count.

FEED FORWARD:

To help you better engage with the feedback you receive across modules, we encourage you to
add, at the beginning or the end of this assessment, up to three comments mentioning some of
the feedback you received in previous assessments and how you have addressed it in the
present assessment. This will enable your marker to better understand your approach and give
you more tailored feedback.

Note that: this option is not mandatory; it will not impact your mark; and it will not be included
in the word count.
Has Modern western society become less bloodthirsty?

It is a commonly held belief that, due to the changing sensibilities of modern western
society, the social world we now live in is no longer “Bloodthirsty”. Those with this
view often use arguments such as the banning of Animal fighting in the UK (Animal
Violence Act, 1876) as their evidence. This however, may not be as persuasive an
argument as once originally thought. Before we begin our analysis of modern
western society as ‘bloodthirsty’, it is important to define what we mean by
“bloodthirsty” as meanings can vary depending on the topic of a debate. For this
essay, we will centre our argument around that of the Oxford English dictionary
(2023): “That thirsts for blood; eager for bloodshed, murderous”. Specifically, using
the term ‘eager’ definitively, we will argue that: Modern Western society has not
become less bloodthirsty, but rather, the manifestation of bloodthirst has become
hidden behind ideology and discursive practice. The bloodthirsty practices of the
current social world changing from those of past explicit killings, rooted more within
the mundane. This is due to the removal of visibility and agency of animals (Morgan
and Cole, 2011) in order to keep the violent reality concealed. We will argue this, in
the following essay, using examples in how animals come to be constructed under
different instrumental roles in society. Mainly looking at those of: food/ livestock
animals, scientific animals and hunted animals and how discourse changes the
constructed identity and therefore social visibility. We will explore how their abuse is
normalised within the construction of language, making society just as bloodthirsty
as in the past. Although, society now is better equipped to hide it.

The growing meat industry is an explicit example of how bloodthirsty practices in

modern western societies has, in fact, not lessened. Meat consumption has
dramatically grown globally; individuals consuming an average of 43 kg of meat as of
2013, compared to the 23kg average measured in 1961 (Lundström, 2019). With the
social norm of the over-consumption of animal produce now being a ‘given’ in
western societies such as the UK, it is no surprise that industrial farming practices
have similarly been forced to increase, to meet demand under capitalism. One then
begins to question the morality of the processes used in order to supply such a
monumental demand for produce? Fordist farming and mass production processes
often lead to undue pain inflicted onto the animals we have commodified as
‘produce’. A removal of agency from animals we now only refer to as ‘livestock’.
These animals are not considered as animals in their own right, let alone as subjects
to be treated with dignity (Morgan and Cole, 2011). Animals are kept in cages too
small for them, and a PETA (2017) eyewitness investigation recounts instances of
chickens losing feathers from ammonia burns, and birds tossed into bins to “rot and
die”. How can this be anything but Bloodthirsty? With the expansion of livestock
farming, there has also been an increase in the destruction of the environment
(Lundström, 2019). Greenhouse gases produced by animal-based foods being twice
those produced from plants (Beyond Carnism, 2022). This brings into question if the
loss of life due to climate change could be classed under our definition of
‘bloodthirsty’ as well? Within the normalisation of this amount of destruction and
violence, it is interesting to view the “cultural transformation” that has allowed mass
slaughter of animals to take place (Morton, 2017 in Lundström, 2019). The division of
those animals of which we consider as food and those we do not,, there is an
ideological lesion in the social consciousness for how we define animals. Despite the
love we feel for our humanised companion animals, those in the west still seem all
too ready to stand and choose the juiciest cut of beef from the shelf. Weston (2009)
argues that there is now the desire for ‘willed ignorance’ on how the food we eat
comes to be on our plate. Supermarket packaging deflecting interest on the ‘whole’
of the animal as an act of concealing these origins.There is an innate emphasis of
collectivity within the construction of ‘mass meat’ separated from the individuality of
the animal. Actors consuming sections of the animal that fragment into a collective. A
supermarket fridge full of ‘rump’ cuts of steak; the product of potentially hundreds of
animals in a marketised single space.
With meat markets now driven by profit rather than necessity for food, certain
animals are treated as tools to achieve financial success (Lundström, 2019),
opposed to those treated as family members. Markets distribute ‘meat’ rather than
'flesh’; creating a social sphere where these animals become ‘anonymous’ (Vialles,
1994). Rather than viewing the animal, we now simply consume a substance.
Disembedded from its origin of the sentient. In contrast to the ‘pets’ we so know and
love, we do not see the individual animal behind the meal; we do not attribute
subjectivity or emotion to it, the objectification of certain categories of livestock for
consumption widens the epistemological gap between human and animal.
Legitimising their pain. Vialles (1994) argues that slaughter on such a large scale
has allowed the animal to become ‘vegatelised’ (p23); depersonalisation absolves
human actors from the responsibility of the individual animal. We can also see this
within the discursive construction of the terms used for animals once ‘butchered’.
They become ‘meat’ not ‘flesh’. We eat ‘Beef’ not ‘Cows’; ‘Pork’ not 'Pigs’. Even the
term ‘Butchery’ instead of ‘slaughter’ shows the dislocation between the discourse
and the reality of meat consumption (Vialles, 1994). Euphemism of the slaughter
removes the individual animal from the concern of a social actor, making them more
inclined to continue the upward trend of meat consumption, as the adverse effects
are hidden. The mass slaughter of animals is hidden behind closed doors. Dowsett
et al. (2018. in Lundström, 2019) describe this as the “psychosocial process in which
humans come to view animal flesh as food”. Ultimately, these ideological processes
act to support the violence of the meat industry, and are insightful in viewing how
animals become depersonalised when considered on mass. Therefore perfectly
illustrating the bloodthirst of modern western society in the disregard for the singular
animal in favour of the utility of the collective. We can view this in relation to
increasing concern of individual animal welfare, whilst the meat industry
simultaneously prospers off of the back of mass appropriation and abuse.

There seems to be a social distinction between which animals are deemed worthy of
‘welfare’ or dignity and those that are not. Is it not contradictory to allow some
animals the right to dignity and others not? When all animals experience morally
relevant, reflexive pain (Simpson, 2022). This willingness to inflict pain on animals
due to how we ideologically construct them is an example of bloodthirsty human
behaviour under modernity. A study by Sandgren, et al. (2020), shows that the
concern for animals within the area of scientific testing is dependent largely on
factors of: species and research purpose. When considering species, they found
participants rated scientific research least justifiable when on primates or cats/dogs;
against most justifiable on rodents and fish. Sandgren et al., (2020) argue that
individuals make judgements on animals based on aspects such as: the
‘human-animal bond’, positions on the phylogenetic scale and perceived cognitive
and emotional capacities. Therefore changing those animals we consider to be
worthy of welfare concerns based on the ‘subject- object divide’ (Morgan and Cole,
2011). Despite this hierarchy of concern, the violence implicit in animal testing
cannot be ignored. Especially within cosmetic testing, which typically uses devalued
‘rodents’ such as rats and mice. These animals are frequently subject to being:
poisoned, blinded, maimed and left with chemical burns and brain damage (PETA,
2014) This reality remains relevant today as - despite increasing concerns of animal
welfare - 88% of the 50 largest cosmetic companies still participate in animal testing
(Brand Finance, 2021). Loss of animal life for this ends does not appear a justified
means, and cannot be described as anything but ‘Bloodthirsty’. Furthermore,
regardless of the harm done to these animals through cosmetic testing, debates
within animal welfare still appear inconsistent at best. Concern for animals only
seems to rise to the top of public consciousness when people are confronted with
individual cases of abuse. We can use Cohen’s (2009) ‘states of denial’ to further
explore this idea. Individuals choose to avert their gaze from “truths unbearable to
acknowledge'' (p9). Here, Cohen argues that in a social atmosphere where people
are increasingly aware of suffering within expanding communication networks, they
have to purposefully turn a blind eye to both the reality and scale of suffering. This is
done through techniques such as: not recognising responsibility and refusing to
rectify a lack of knowledge of wrongdoing. To consider this in terms of our definition
for that which is ‘bloodthirsty’: individuals are ‘eager’ to claim the different benefits
provided by violence to animals, but not to accept the responsibility for the
inescapable suffering tied to the production of these benefits or commodities. The
act must be violent to the ‘right’ animals, those who fall on the correct side of the
subject-object divide, as to which normalises abuse through the removal of agency
to animals of which we instrumentalise (Morgan and Cole, 2011). Due to this
‘subject-object’ divide, scientific research could never take place on an individualised
‘pet’ animal, as that would be immoral, but on a depersonalised ‘swarm’ it’s perfectly
permissible. Through the objectification of those animals we use as instruments and
products of human production, public consciousness is for the most part only ever
concerned with the abuse of scientific animals when directly confronted with it, for
example within media projects. For example, the viral short film made by Taika Watiti
for the “Humane society International” in 2021. The video centred around the
anthropomorphized Rabbit “Ralph”, who steadily becomes increasingly maimed and
incapacitated at the hands of animal testing. The personification and individualisation
attributed to “Ralph” elicited a huge public response in favour of scientific animal
welfare. The video amounting to over 16 million views (Youtube, 2024). This is a
perfect example of ‘The states of denial’ (Cohen, 2001) within living ideologies as
people managed to display empathy while maintaining inconsistency of
acknowledging the ‘terrible fate’ (Morgan and Cole, 2011) that the millions of other
scientific animals will face while empathising with this individual. This point is made
even more acute by the fact ‘Ralph’ was portrayed through puppetry; never even
actually subject to the violence individuals deny and ‘turn a blind eye’ to. In the case
of ‘Ralph’ we are able to view how individuals may only empathise with animals on a
subjectivised individual basis. As seen with public concern eventually centering
around “Ralf” himself instead of the collective mass of animals abused in research.
The removal of agency from the collective mass resulted in a culture of bloodthirst
surrounding the anonymised group. The construction of conflicting species identities
within the ‘subject-object’ divide legitimises the use and abuse of animals under
scientific and cosmetic testing. This is a clear way in which the culture of modern
western society remains bloodthirsty, albeit in a covert way. Animal abuse
anonymised in construction of the collective aside from the individualism ascribed to
animals that play more of a role in the emotional lives of individuals (Morgan and
Cole, 2011). Society is eager to reap the rewards of animals reduced to objectivised
‘animal machines’, and does this through modern ideology rooted in the bloodthirst
of humanity.

The justification for animal violence within the ‘subject- object’ divide can also be
seen within hunting practices of modern western society. These practices combined
with how we determine what is considered as ‘hunting’ in the first place. For
example, the welfare of the individual fox, seen (more) as an agent, has been largely
debated and advocated for by animal rights groups. So much so as to influence
governmental policy, such as “The Hunting Ban’ (2004) passed by Tony Blair’s
government. Making it illegal to hunt wild mammals with dogs in the UK. The way in
which we hunt these animals allows us to construct them as individuals, singular
specific animals targeted. Therefore applying subjectivity worthy of welfare. Despite
the classed contestation of this ban (fox hunting as a largely upper class practice), its
implementation shows considerable concern within the public and political
consciousness towards individualised animal welfare. However, where does this sit
in relation to hunting of the collective? The fact that society constructs on mass acts,
which are arguably also hunting practices, is evidence of this favouring of mass
violence over singular. Attitudes on welfare change situationally and spatially
(Broom, 2011). For example: if we again look at the case of rat; their collective
extermination is deemed as permissible under the discourse of “pest control’’. It is
interesting to consider the constructed position of animals such as rats in a society
that views them as both vermin and ‘pet’. Endelman (2005) argues that rats are
linked closely with notions of danger, disease and disgust. However can also be
seen as delightful and compassionate pets. The former identity allows objectification
of the animal for human needs; the latter identity allows attribution of subjectivity and
the right to welfare concern. The presence of rats within the sewer, as the
‘underworld’ of the city, creates a pathologized identity due to the symbolic space in
which they inhabit. They are often depicted in large, collective ‘swarms’ (Endelman,
2005); which allows the depersonalization of the animal, and therefore enables their
demonization in public opinion, and are considered a disposable object. However, as
soon as a rat is allowed to be considered on the opposing side of subjectivity, and
purposefully domesticated, its singular sociogenic identity is changed situationally
and spatially. The position of the rat changes due to an individual's experience of
them emotionally. This however does not change societal images of them as ‘dirty’
but does create an interesting paradox between collective symbolism, and individual
opinion on the Rat. Due to the transgression of the subject-object boundary,
individual rats are able to no longer be seen as hellish pests, however this does not
prevent the slaughter of the collective under the guise of ‘pest control’. The
condemned rat may only be pardoned when their positioning in relation to humanity
grants them the privilege. As Morgan and Cole, (2011) state “the greatest degree of
exploitation and violence in modern Western culture tends to go in hand with
increasing levels of objectification… as well as with decreasing visibility of their
experiences” (p113). Therefore in order to maintain justification for this bloodthirsty
violence, the ‘rat’ must be made anonymous in the hunt; and thus invisible. For
example: look at the most popular ways we are encouraged to exterminate the
animals: through rat poison easily available. This method of killing allows the social
actor to only be ‘proxy’ to the death of the rat, it is not necessary for their presence at
the time of kill. Instead of purposefully killing a specific animal, they kill whichever
objectivised rat that stumbles upon their trap. This removal of agency therefore
becomes explicit in the method of killing. This is contrasted to the ways in which
foxes are hunted; instead as targeted individuals. This arguably is a reason behind
why we construct mammal killing as ‘hunting’ against the ‘control’ of vermin.
Objectification through the whole is also present in the case of insects, living in the
private spaces of humanity as unwelcome ‘pests’ that must be killed and removed.
By constructing this as pest control Instead of hunting, we are ideologically removing
ideas of violence implicit when acts are considered instead as ‘slaughter’. Therefore
we can view how modern western society remains bloodthirsty due to the way it
continues to regularly ‘hunt’ animals. These animals are instead those collectivised
as ‘pests’ rather than those, such as mammals, of which we attribute subjectivity to.

Conclusively, despite parliamentary acts concerning the welfare and protection of

animals such as; the Hunting Act (2004) and the Animal Welfare Act (2006), Modern
Western society remains bloodthirsty, however it is increasingly hidden from view;
concealed through discursive practices removing agency from those animals we
wish to exploit. Animals are instrumentalized within constructed identities based on
the roles humans attribute to them. Allowing some animals the freedom of
subjectivity and humanisation and others violence justified through their social
objectification. When considering the increasing normalcy of meat consumption, we
can view how the true realities of the pain animals go through is masked by the
disjunction between “animal” and “meat” as discursive terms (Vialles, 1994).
Similarly, those animals who face abuse within the world of scientific research have
the realities of their lives and deaths shrouded by human constructed
instrumentalized identities and the ‘subject- object divide’ (Morgan and Cole, 2011).
Thus, allowing us to legitimise the pain we inflict through hiding the realities of the
individual animal in the collective. Finally, We have discussed the implicit relation
between the collective and individual within defining those animals we ‘hunt’ and
those we ‘control’ as ‘pests’ and how bloodthirst is still present in the mundane.
Therefore, due to the cultural restrictions of how modern western society objectifies
and instrumentalizes certain animals, we can effectively conclude that the social
world today remains bloodthirsty, despite superficial concern for animal welfare.
References

- Animal Violence Act 1876, c. 77. London: The Stationery Office

- Beyond Carnism, (n.d.). End Climate Carnism, Beyond Carnism. [online]
Available at:
https://carnism.org/carnism/end-climate-carnism/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAhomtBhDg
ARIsABcaYym7usJc7Qv7bDxewkAGxle3ddVY4ja02JYVJS5A9nOjbtvV-Zg6rF
caAtEXEALw_wcB [Accessed 19 January. 2024].
- Brand Finance (2021). Cosmetics 50. [online] Available at:
https://static.brandirectory.com/reports/brand-finance-cosmetics-50-2021-prev
iew.pdf [Accessed 19 January. 2024].
- Broom, D.M. (2011). A History of Animal Welfare Science. Acta Biotheoretica,
[online] 59(2), pp.121–137. Available at:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10441-011-9123-3 [Accessed 14
January. 2024].
- Cohen, S. (2001) States of denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering,
Cambridge: Polity
- Endelman, B. (2005). From Trap to Lap: The Changing Sociogenic Identity of
the Rat. In: J. Knight, ed., Animals in Person. New York: Berg, pp.119–140.
- The Humane Society of the United States (2021). Save Ralph - A short film
with Taika Waititi. [online] www.youtube.com. Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G393z8s8nFY.
- Hunting Act 2004, c. 23. London: The Stationery Office
- Lundström, M. (2019). The Political Economy of Meat. Journal of Agricultural
and Environmental Ethics, [online] 32(1), pp.95–104. Available at:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-019-09760-9 [Accessed 10
January. 2024].
- Morgan K. and Cole, M. (2011) The Discursive Representation of Nonhuman
Animals in a Culture of Denial. In Carter, B. and Charles, N. (eds) human and
other animals: critical perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan
- Oxford English dictionary (2023). [online] Oxford University Press. Available
at:
 https://www.oed.com/dictionary/bloodthirsty_adj?tab=meaning_and_use#1789
6294 [Accessed 12th January 2024]
- PETA (2014). Testing Cosmetics and Household Products on Animals, PETA.
[online] PETA. Available at:
https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/cosmetic-hous
ehold-products-animal-testing/ [Accessed 19th January. 2024].
- PETA (2017) How PETA Helps Animals on UK Farms (and How You Can Get
Involved) [online] PETA. Available
at:/https://www.peta.org.uk/action/peta-helps-animals-uk-farms-can-get-involv
ed/?utm_source=PETA%20UK::Google&utm_medium=Ad&utm_campaign=1
020::gen::PETA%20UK::Google::s-grant-dsa::::searchad&gad_source=1&gcli
d=Cj0KCQiAhomtBhDgARIsABcaYynBusOFTl-DMznMni6Bkrge81nthHuK6K8
lRL6eLAWbK5l8vQ_w_QoaAgLUEALw_wcB#eyewitnessinvestigations
[Accessed 19th January. 2024].
- Sandgren, E. P. et al. (2020). Attitudes toward animals, and how species and
purpose affect animal research justifiability, among undergraduate students
and faculty. PloS one, 15 (5), pp.e0233204–e0233204. [Online]. Available
at:https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233204
- Simpson, J. (2023). Non-Human Animals Feel Pain in a Morally Relevant
Sense. Philosophia, [online] 51(1), pp.329–336. Available at:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-022-00538-4#Fn2 [Accessed
12th January 2024)
- Vialles, N. (1994). Animal to edible / Noélie Vialles ; preface by Françoise
Héritier-Augé ; translated from the French by J.A. Underwood. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
- Weston, A. (2009) An Invitation to Environmental Philosophy. New York:
Oxford University Press