Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Naturecultures and the affective (dis)entanglements of happy meat

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent decades, there has been a proliferation of alternative food networks (AFNs) which promote an agenda of reconnection, allegedly linking consumers and producers to the socio-ecological origins of food. Rarely, however, does the AFN literature address “origins” of food in terms of animals, as in the case of meat. This article takes a relational approach to the reconnection agenda between humans and animals by discussing how the phenomenon of animal welfare and “happy” meat are enacted by producers and consumers in mundane, embodied, and nuanced ways. Utilizing hybrid conceptualizations of human–animal relations through “natureculture” and “being alongside”, we demonstrate that consumers and producers of AFNs perform natureculture entanglements daily, often considering humans and animals as part of one another and the ecological system. Nonetheless, we also point to how participants in AFNs set boundaries to distance themselves from moments of animal life and death, explaining away uncomfortable affective naturecultures through commodification logics. Drawing on qualitative data from consumers and producers of food networks in Austria, we introduce the concept of “human–animal magnetism” to illustrate that the draw for humans to care about other animal lives exists within a spectrum of attraction and disassociation, engendered through specific human–animal interactions. Ultimately, we offer a cautiously hopeful version of alterity in AFNs of meat in which more caring human–animal relations are possible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A caveat: the authors do not claim an inherent goodness in AFNs and caution against such efforts, following scholars which point to the many blind spots and limits of AFNs in their racial and economic exclusivity (see Guthman 2008; Slocum 2007). What we do wish to argue is that in our review of AFN literature, inquiry into affective human–animal relationships is missing, which is striking considering the agenda of “reconnection” in the food movement.

  2. Haraway discusses meat-eating as compatible with her notion of “companion species”, while vegan and vegetarian scholars articulate a different understanding. Critical animal scholars reject meat-eating as incompatible with feminist principles and fundamentally contrary to an egalitarian society (see Adams 1990; Adams and Gruen 2014; Donovan 1990; Potts 2016). However, for Haraway and ecofeminists like Val Plumwood, eating meat acknowledges a species interconnection and foregrounds embodiment and human–animal continuity (Haraway 2008; Plumwood 2000).

References

  • Adams, C. 1990. The sexual politics of meat: a feminist-vegetarian critical theory. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. and L. Gruen. 2014. Ecofeminism. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alkon, A. H. 2013. The socio-nature of local organic food. Antipode 45 (3): 663–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asdal, K., and N. Marres. 2014. Performing environmental change: the politics of social science methods. Environment and Planning A 46 (9): 2055–2064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, K. 2013. Home and heart, hand and eye: unseen links between pigmen and pigs in industrial farming. In Why we eat, how we eat, eds. E. Abbots, and A. Lavis, 53–38. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baritaux, V., M. Houdart, J. P. Boutonnet, C. Chazoule, C. Corniaux, P. Fleury, N. Lacombe, M. Napoleone, and J. F. Tourrand. 2016. Ecological embeddedness in animal food systems (re)localization: a comparative analysis of initiatives in France, Morocco and Senegal. Journal of Rural Studies 43: 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barua, M. 2016. Lively commodities and encounter value. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34 (4): 725–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, M. K., J. Mellor, and L. Crane. 2010. Buying local food: shopping practices, place, and consumption networks in defining food as ‘local’. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100 (2): 409–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BMLFUW 2014. Lebensmittel in Österreich: Zahlen-Daten-Fakten. http://www.bmlfuw.gv.at. Accessed 20 June 2017.

  • Bruckner, H. K. 2018. Beyond happy meat: body mapping (dis)connections to animals in alternative food networks. Area 50 (3): 322–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller, H., and C. Morris. 2003. Farm animal welfare: a new repertoire of nature-society relations or modernism re-embedded? Sociologia Ruralis 43 (3): 216–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller, H., and E. Roe. 2014. Modifying and commodifying farm animal welfare: the economisation of layer chickens. Journal of Rural Studies 33: 141–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller, H., and E. Roe. 2018. Food and animal welfare. London, UK: Bloosmbury Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. 2011. From “animal machines” to “happy meat”? Foucault’s ideas of disciplinary and pastoral power applied to ‘animal-centered’ welfare discourse. Animals 1 (1): 83–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, J. 1990. Animal rights and feminist theory. Signs 2: 350–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DuPuis, E. M., and D. Goodman. 2005. Should we go ‘home’ to eat? Towards a reflexive politics of localism. Journal of Rural Studies 21 (3): 359–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ermann, U. 2005. Regionalprodukte. Vernetzungen und Grenzziehungen bei der Regionalisierung von Nahrungsmitteln. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, A., and M. Miele. 2012. Between food and flesh: how animals are made to matter (and not matter) within food consumption practices. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 30 (2): 298–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO STAT. 2014. Primary livestock. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QL. Accessed 16 Feb 2017.

  • Feagen, R. 2007. The place of food: mapping out the ‘local’ in local food systems. Progress in Human Geography 31 (1): 23–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Graham, J. K. 2006. A postcapitalist politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, K. 2011. How happy is your meat? Confronting (dis)connectedness in the ‘alternative’ meat industry. The Brock Review 12 (1): 100–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, M. K. 2016. Food geographies I: relational foodscapes and the busy-ness of being more-than-food. Progress in Human Geography 40 (2): 257–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D., M. DuPuis, and M. K. Goodman. 2012. Alternative food networks: knowledge, place and politics. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, R. 2017. Therapeutic landscapes and non-human animals: the roles and contested positions of animals within care farming assemblages. Social and Cultural Geography 18 (3): 315–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossblatt, B. 2017. Suicide food. Animals that desire to be eaten. http://suicidefood.blogspot.co.at. Accessed 3 Nov 2017.

  • Guthman, J. 2008. “If they only knew”: color blindness and universalism in California alternative food institutions. The Professional Geographer 60 (3): 387–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. 1991. Simians, cyborgs and women: the reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. 2003. The companion species manifesto. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. 2008. When species meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, E. 2009. Neoliberal subjectivities or a politics of the possible? Reading for difference in alternative food networks. Area 41 (1): 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes-Conroy, A., and D. G. Martin. 2010. Mobilising bodies: visceral identification in the slow food movement. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35 (2): 269–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinrichs, C. 2003. The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of Rural Studies 19 (1): 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, L. 2001. Pets and proteins: placing domestic livestock on hobby-farms in England and Wales. Journal of Rural Studies 17 (3): 293–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, L. 2002. Virtual vegetables and adopted sheep: ethical relations, authenticity and internet-mediated food production technologies. Area 34 (1): 70–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, L., and M. Kneafsey. 2000. Reading the space of the farmers’ market: a preliminary investigation from the UK. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (3): 285–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarosz, L. 2000. Understanding agri-food networks as social relations. Agriculture and Human Values 17 (3): 279–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joy, M. 2010. Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: an introduction to carnism: the belief system that enables us to eat some animals and not others. Berkeley: Conari Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusenbach, M. 2003. Street phenomenology: the go-along as ethnographic research. Ethnography 4 (3): 455–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latimer, J. 2013. Being alongside: rethinking relations amongst different kinds. Theory, Culture & Society 30 (7/8): 77–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latimer, J., and M. Miele. 2013. Naturecultures? Science, affect and the non-human. Theory, Culture and Society 30 (7/8): 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. 1993. We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorimer, J. 2007. Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25: 911–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matscher, A., and M. Schermer. 2010. Zusatznutzen Berg? Argumente für den Konsum von Bergprodukten. Agrarwirtschaft 58 (2): 125–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miele, M. 2011. The taste of happiness: free-range chicken. Environment and Planning A 43 (9): 2076–2090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pachirat, T. 2011. Every twelve seconds: industrialized slaughter and the politics of sight. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palladino, P. 2017. Transhumance revisited: on mobility and process between ethnography and history. Journal of Historical Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1111/johs.12161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paxson, H. 2010. Locating value in artisan cheese: reverse engineering terroir for new-world landscapes. American Anthropologists 112 (3): 444–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plumwood, V. 2000. Integrating ethical frameworks for animals, humans and nature: a critical feminist eco socialist analysis. Ethics and the Environment 5 (2): 285–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porcher, J. 2011. The relationship between workers and animals in the pork industry: a shared suffering. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (1): 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porcher, J. 2017. The ethics of animal labour: a collaborative utopia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Potts, M. 2016. Meat culture. Boston: Brill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sarmiento, E. R. 2017. Synergies in alternative food network research: embodiment, diverse economies, and more-than-human food geographies. Agriculture and Human Values 34 (2): 485–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sassatelli, R., and A. Scott. 2001. Novel food, new markets and trust regimes: responses to the erosion of consumers’ confidence in Austria, Italy and the UK. European Societies 3 (2): 213–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schermer, M. 2015. From ‘food from nowhere’ to ‘food from here:’ changing producer-consumer relations in Austria. Agriculture and Human Values 31 (1): 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton, A. E., A. Hayes-Conroy, E. L. Sweet, M. Miele, and J. Ash. 2017. Better than text? Critical reflections on the practices of visceral methodologies in human geography. Geoforum 82: 200–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shukin, N. 2009. Animal capital: rendering life in biopolitical times. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slocum, R. 2007. Whiteness, space and alternative food practice. Geoforum 38 (3): 520–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanescu, V. 2010. “Green” eggs and ham? The myth of sustainable meat and the danger of the local. Journal for Critical Animal Studies 8 (1/2): 8–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanescu, V. 2014. Crocodile tears, compassionate carnivores and the marketing of “happy meat”. In Critical animal studies: thinking the unthinkable, ed. J. Sorenson, 216–233. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stassart, P., and S. Whatmore. 2003. Metabolising risk: food scares and the un/re-making of Belgian beef. Environment and Planning A 35 (3): 449–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. 1987. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Treager, A. 2011. Progressing knowledge in alternative and local food networks: critical reflections and a research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 27 (4): 419–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twine, R. 2010. Animals as biotechnology: ethics, sustainability and critical animal studies. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vialles, N. 1994. Animal to edible. Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadiwel, D. 2016. Do fish resist? Cultural Studies Review 22 (1): 196–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, M. 2000. Afterword: enclosure. In Animal spaces, beastly places: new geographies of human–animal relations, eds. C. Philo, and C. Wilbert, 292–304. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whatmore, S. 1997. Dissecting the autonomous self: hybrid cartographies for a relational ethics. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15 (1): 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie, R. 2005. Sentient commodities and productive paradoxes: the ambiguous nature of human–livestock relations in Northeast Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2): 213–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie, R. 2010. Livestock/deadstock. working with farm animals from birth to slaughter. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, M. 2003. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies 19 (1): 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates-Doerr, E., and A. Mol. 2012. Cuts of meat: disentangling western natures-cultures. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology 30 (2): 48–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research for this paper was made possible due to funding from the Regional Government of Styria, Austria, under the project title “(Un)Knowing Food.” We would also like to warmly thank the many local farmers and consumers who shared their time and stories with us.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heide K. Bruckner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bruckner, H.K., Colombino, A. & Ermann, U. Naturecultures and the affective (dis)entanglements of happy meat. Agric Hum Values 36, 35–47 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-9884-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-9884-2

Keywords

Navigation