Institute for Sustainable Futures University of Technology Sydney Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, New South Wales 2007 Australia.
School of Psychology and Public Health La Trobe University 133 McKoy Street, Wodonga, Victoria, 3690, Australia.
Appetite. 2021 Sep 1;164:105227. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105227. Epub 2021 Apr 2.
The 'meat paradox' is the psychological conflict between people's enjoyment of meat and their moral discomfort in relation to animal suffering. To date, most studies on the meat paradox have been in Western contexts where meat-eating is a cultural norm. In comparison, little is known about how the meat paradox is experienced in emerging economies such as India, where the longstanding cultural commitment to vegetarianism is under challenge. Further, most studies to date have been quantitative. This study bridges the knowledge gap by providing a qualitative comparison of the meat paradox in urban Australia and India, using cognitive dissonance theory as its main framework. We conducted in-depth interviews with twenty-two Sydney residents and thirty-three Mumbai residents, aged 23-45 years. The interviews were analysed using a grounded theory approach. In both countries, common strategies to reduce dissonance included distancing, belief in a human-animal hierarchy, carnism and criticisms of alternative dietary practices. Despite these commonalities, the manner in which these strategies manifested was different in each country, reflecting key socio-cultural and institutional differences. Australian participants became aware of the ethical challenges of meat consumption primarily via the media, whereas many Indian participants had direct experience of animal slaughter in wet markets. Thus, while Australian participants had reduced their meat consumption or turned to 'kinder' alternatives, Indian participants resorted to distancing and emotional numbing to reduce dissonance. Further, participants in both countries highlighted instances of moral hypocrisy in relation to vegetarian/vegan practices. While Australian participants discussed self-proclaimed vegetarians who might succumb to a dietary lapse, Indian participants discussed inconsistencies in relation to religious and caste-based norms.
“肉悖论”是指人们享受肉食与对动物遭受痛苦的道德不适之间的心理冲突。迄今为止，大多数关于肉悖论的研究都是在西方背景下进行的，在那里吃肉是一种文化规范。相比之下，人们对新兴经济体（如印度）中肉悖论的体验知之甚少，在这些经济体中，长期以来对素食主义的文化承诺正受到挑战。此外，迄今为止，大多数研究都是定量的。本研究通过使用认知失调理论作为主要框架，对澳大利亚和印度城市的肉悖论进行了定性比较，填补了这一知识空白。我们对 22 名悉尼居民和 33 名 23-45 岁的孟买居民进行了深入访谈。采用扎根理论方法对访谈进行了分析。在这两个国家，减少不和谐的常见策略包括疏远、相信人类与动物的等级制度、肉食主义以及对替代饮食实践的批评。尽管存在这些共性，但这些策略在每个国家的表现方式不同，反映了关键的社会文化和制度差异。澳大利亚参与者主要通过媒体意识到吃肉的伦理挑战，而许多印度参与者在湿市场有过直接的动物屠宰经验。因此，尽管澳大利亚参与者减少了肉类消费或转向“更温和”的替代品，但印度参与者则通过疏远和情感麻木来减少不和谐。此外，来自两个国家的参与者都强调了与素食/纯素食实践有关的道德虚伪。虽然澳大利亚参与者讨论了自称为素食主义者的人可能会屈服于饮食失调，但印度参与者讨论了与宗教和种姓规范有关的不一致。
