Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
…
4 pages
1 file
What it is like to share space with people that sustain their bodies on animal flesh, when you don't.
Does the annual, ritualized, live, mass slaughter of livestock animals practiced by observant Muslims worldwide during Eid ul-Adha (which commemorates the Abrahamic sacrifice and is a required obligation for financially able pilgrims during Hajj) respect the sanctity of life and afford a “good death” to the slaughtered animals in any meaningful way? Does it matter for an ethically conscious believing Muslim that the lives of these animals be extinguished by our hands in the most humane way possible? These are the broad questions I explore in my paper. In particular, I describe how, except in certain narrow circumstances, this ritual, as often practiced now, is open to the following ethical critiques: The ritual treats animals unethically according to non-Islamic ethical standards. The ritual treats animals unethically according to Islamic teachings about the treatment of animals. The ritual doesn’t function ethically as an individual experience that brings one closer to God by promoting the sanctity and preciousness of life (yes, ironically, by giving the animals in question a swift, clean death with minimal pain and suffering), i.e., as it’s supposed to function. Instead, the ritual involves turning a blind eye to the prolonged suffering inflicted upon the animals who are the objects of sacrifice. The ritual doesn’t function socially or practically as it was intended to function, e.g., it’s an inefficient way to help the poor. There are other ways in which participants are negatively impacted by the ritual e.g., some people are too close to the slaughter and therefore desensitized, and others who are too far from the slaughter are also desensitized in a different way. Thus, Muslims and our allies who are troubled by these critiques need to forge alliances whether to advocate for reforms to the practice, or to reimagine the practice altogether.
Killing Animals, by the Animal Studies Group, 2006
The ethical food movement signals a significant transformation of cultural consciousness in its recognition of the intimate politics of what we eat and what kind of socio-political systems we sustain. The recent resurgence of economic localization exemplifies a grass roots attempt to undermine the hegemony of transnational corporations and build ecologically and economically sustainable communities. Social justice plays a key role in the guiding philosophies of these movements, and yet, while many ecocritical discourses examine the uncomfortable relationship of anthropocentricism and sustainability, some contemporary texts of the ethical food movement evidence a reluctant embrace of omnivorous eating, while simultaneously indicating a gendered, if ironic, machismo at odds with the principles of ethical eating. An analysis of the rhetoric of three popular nonfiction books that construct a similar narrative of the story of meat—Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Susan Bourette’s Meat, a Love Story, and Scott Gold’s The Shameless Carnivore—reveals an attempt by these authors to naturalize what is essentially an economic and lifestyle activity. Working within a vegetarian ecofeminist framework, though recognizing that multiple compelling philosophical positions exist for considering the ethics of meat eating, this paper intends to argue, not that “ethical” and “omnivorous” are contradictory terms, but rather that a moral ambivalence prevails in these texts despite these authors’ claims to the contrary. In elucidating these authors’ reactions to their own participation in “the omnivore’s dilemma” this paper pinpoints those areas where a resistance to a deeper examination of human-nonhuman relations is in operation.
Journal of Critical Animal Studies
A characteristically eclectic range of significant and timely articles are published in this current issue of the Journal for Critical Animal Studies, each aiming to bring greater clarity, depth and vision to the critical animal studies literature and beyond. For some authors this will be achieved principally by re-visiting long established themes and arguments, for others their critical contribution will be gauged by making addressing emerging gaps in the literature, and grappling with ideas and outcomes that have become increasingly relevant to consider at the present time. Whatever the specific focus I am confident that the content will both invite and challenge us -the reader -to constructively revisit our own dominant ideas, perceptions, and understanding, and open these up to new and ever critical lines of engagement, debate, discussion and action. Reflecting on the content in more detail, David Delafenêtre's The Divided Kingdom: Inconsistency in the UK Legislation Restricting the Tail Docking of Dogs is the first of three Essays in this issue. In his essay David harnesses a rigorous historical framework to better contextualize and develop a critique that focuses on the contested and problematic nature of tail-docking in the United Kingdom. The conclusion makes a strong and unambiguous case for adopting universal principles of animal protections which are based on non-speciesist ethical considerations, having previously illustrated the woeful failure of welfarist approaches to formulate animal protection legislation. In, And Say The Bakemono Responded: Animism, Derrida and the Question of the Animal in Hayao Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke, Chris Crews focuses on the figure of the monster in the popular imaginary, and explores the multiple way(s) in which these creatures have hadand in many ways continues to have -a subversive and de-stabilizing effect on the sociallyconstructed contours that are erected to divide humans from nonhuman animals. The essay skilfully incorporates a wide range of memorable examples, and harnesses an impressive range of literature(s) (with attention paid in particular to discussing various works of Derrida) in order to underpin and develop the central themes, arguments and conclusions. In re-visiting Adams's classic text, "The Sexual Politics of Meat" (1990) Erika Cudworth's wonderfully crafted essay 'The Recipe for Love'? Continuities and Changes in the Sexual 4 Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 4, 2010 (ISSN1948-352X) Politics of Meat makes a series of engaging, critical and persuasive insights that will be of great interest and relevance to a wide range of academic, activist, and other popular communities. Many examples and illustrations used in the essay are drawn from popular food advertisements and cookery in the UK. Thus not only does Erika constructively advance our critical understanding of the intersection between specieisism and patriarchy, but she also extends the relevance and applicability of The Sexual Politics of Meat beyond a largely UScentric popular culture. In the Commentary section Lisa Kemmerer reflects openly on her investigative research that emerged through problematizing the dominant economic frameworks that underpin different types of animal organizations. Drawing primarily on Lisa's experiences of four horse sanctuaries Limited Funds: Assessing Rescues and Sanctuaries gives a reflective, thoughtprovoking and often complex reading of the uneven economic landscapes that different organizations face, and the implications that these contexts have on the various approaches and decisions that are made. Through her analysis Lisa also carefully exposes the problematical approach(es) of the directors of the horse sanctuaries, particularly in the way that their approaches serve to reinforce, rather than challenges, the dominant (cultural) ways in which different species of animals are compartmentalised: "While the directors rescue horses, they consume cattle, pigs, chickens, and turkeys, and help to create a market for veal, eggs, and dairy products." The commentary concludes with several constructive and important recommendations that are particularly orientated around issues related to education, outreach, and prevention. This issue's Rebuttal sees David Sztybel develop a further series of responses that build upon the opening dialogue between David and Katherine Perlo (this dialogue was published in 2008, JCAS Volume VI, Issue I). In his characteristically meticulous, critical, and engaging style David advances the exchange sufficiently by developing a range of persuasive, robust and critical (counter-) arguments. It is well worth getting to grips with this critique, and critically reflecting on the content, irrespective of whether or not you are familiar with the previous dialogues that have taken place. The scope and breadth of the themes, arguments, and conclusions extend impressively across a wide-range of important and timely debates
Αγία Γραφή και Εικαστικές Τέχνες, Επιστημονικό Συνέδριο, 2017
Biologia Plantarum, 1992
Teologia Brasileira, 2018
Lo Sguardo - Rivista di filosofia, 2023
Milli Folklor, 2024
Lettura ‘affettiva’ di un romanzo contemporaneo. Per una proposta di attraversamento testuale, “Cognitive Philology”, 17, 2024, pp. 1-16 ( ISSN 2035-391X) https://rosa.uniroma1.it/rosa03/cognitive_philology/article/view/18515
International Journal of Child Health and Nutrition, 2024
2022
Desalination and Water Treatment, 2021
Physics Letters B, 1977
Estudios Políticos Mexico-UNAM No. 60. 30-52., 2023
2015
European Journal of Cancer, 1993