Eating Animals

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2009

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Key Figures

Themes

Symbols & Motifs

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Themes

The Balance of Personal Shame and Desires

One of Jonathan Safran Foer’s main arguments is that shame and guilt are useful in balancing the desires people have with the moral and ethical implications of their actions. Citing Kafka at an aquarium, Foer focuses on Kafka’s sense of relief upon confronting a fish, knowing that he has become a vegetarian. The relief that Kafka feels is a relief from the shame of knowing that he was eating creatures like the fish, and Foer expands on this feeling with the idea of “forgetting.” According to Foer, people must willfully forget that the meat they are eating was once a living creature. This forgetting has become easier as factory farming has increased the distance, both physically and emotionally, between consumers and the animals they consume. For many, the picture of a traditional farm with a limited number of animals and a dedicated, humane farmer is still the dominant image of farming, but the atrocities Foer details in this book are shown to be the norm across the farming industry. As such, Foer places a measurement of his own desire to eat meat and animal products against his shame after finding out more about the inhumane treatment and processing of animals. This balance is frequently mentioned to decide whether eating meat can fit into one’s lifestyle.

Foer phrases this argument poetically at times, saying: “Silently the animal catches our glance” and “we are exposed” (38), referring to the realization that meat was an animal, and that each meat eater is faced with the decision to eat the meat and cope with shame, or, like Kafka, choose to abstain from meat and meet the animal’s “glance.” However, most meat eaters would prefer not to think about where meat comes from, and this is what Foer calls forgetting. Rather than meet the animal’s “glance,” it is easier to pretend there is no animal, which prevents shame through ignorance. Nonetheless, Foer’s argument includes the abuses that animals face, as well as the unhealthy and unnatural environments of factory farms, making the act of forgetting an almost violent one. Even if the person who chooses to eat meat does not acknowledge where that meat came from, Foer would argue that the meat is still the product of an unethical and immoral institution. Referencing Abraham Lincoln, who once found some birds struggling and aided them, Foer frames this as a matter of moral burden, noting: “once those suffering birds came into his view, a moral burden had been assumed” (267). The “moral burden” of factory farming is to work toward ending the industrial farming system, and Foer contributes to this goal by abstaining from meat. The implication of this burden is that the reader, too, is now faced with the decision to either condone the suffering of animals or abstain from factory farmed meats.

The Ethics of Suffering and Eating

Although the book is titled Eating Animals, much of the focus of Foer’s research is directed toward graphic explanations of the abuses animals suffer from in the factory farm system. In elaborating on the shame that comes from recognizing that meat was once a living animal, Foer is layering on the modern industrial farming methodology as an added source of guilt. The simple relationship between living animals and meat is often sufficient to elicit a response of shame but adding in the atrocities perpetrated on farmed animals increases that tension, making the discussion not just about whether to eat animals but whether it is acceptable to torture animals before eating them. This theme is present throughout the book in the form of statistics and anecdotes regarding animal abuse, such as confined living space, physical violence, and inadequate processing methods. Whenever Foer discusses the suffering of animals, he connects that suffering to the reader’s understanding of the meat that they might purchase and eat.

This rhetorical technique, in which Foer shocks the reader into understanding his own perspective, relies on two elements: the reader’s imagination and assertions of widespread abuse. Foer needs the reader to understand the abuses without witnessing them, and, as he phrases it regarding confined living spaces: “You don’t have to see it for yourself, or even do the math” (129), since the descriptions Foer provides are sufficient. Nonetheless, Foer did need to see these farms and living conditions for himself, and he is now relaying the results of that investigation to the reader. Foer has already done the math of these animals’ suffering, and he has visited farms of differing degrees of ethical and humane behavior, making him an effective expert in relaying such information to the reader. When Foer notes how some animals are tortured before slaughter, confined for the duration of their lives, or put through processing while still alive and conscious, the reader is expected to imagine these realities and trust in Foer’s research.

In addition to the validity and severity of the abuses, which the reader must imagine for themselves, Foer’s argument also rests on the widespread nature of these issues. If the examples Foer cites are unique or rare, then his argument would need to shift from enacting largescale change to increasing oversight. However, Foer regularly reminds the reader that factory farming is the norm, and that many animals farmed for human consumption experience precisely what the reader’s imagination has conjured. Even when a statistic is not in the majority, such as Foer citing Temple Grandin’s audits which found that 32% of surveyed factory farms had regular, deliberate abuses, Foer analyzes the statistic in a way that shows a greater occurrence of abuse. Since the 32% figure is based on auditor visits, Foer suggests that many factories would not commit as many abuses in the auditor’s presence, meaning 32% of the plants were willing to abuse animals even in the direct presence of the auditor. This analysis implies that abuse is much more widespread, further cementing Foer’s argument that meat is most often the product of suffering. As such, the meat that one eats is almost guaranteed to have been the result of the abuses that Foer encourages the reader to imagine, and the goal of such an argument is inevitably to convince readers to abstain from meat eating.

Social Responsibility, the Environment, and Starvation

Another argument that Foer uses is the contrast of environmentalism, sustenance, and ethics. Through this lens, Foer argues that factory farming, though claiming to resolve the issue of sustaining a burgeoning population, is damaging the environment while violating ethical obligations. In addition to the abuses and inhumane processes of factory farming, Foer discusses how waste management destroys land and spreads disease, how massive farming operations consume more food than human populations, and how factory-farmed meat breeds diseases. These issues are meant to contrast with two elements of Foer’s narrative: his grandmother’s experience during the Holocaust and his own family’s experience with food waste. Essentially, starvation is still a global issue, and food insecurity is expressed in Eating Animals through Ethel Safran, Foer’s grandmother, who still refused to eat pork when on the brink of starving. Ethel’s experience is contrasted with the luxury foods that Foer’s family purchased when he was a child, as well as the amount of food that was ultimately thrown out. With food waste increasing and starvation persisting as a global issue, Foer is highlighting the futility of arguments that claim factory farming is a necessity in the modern day.

The critical presentation of the argument for factory farming comes from a factory farmer, whom Foer does not name. The factory farmer says that it is “childish” and “immoral” to argue for a vegetarian world, “when we’re having such a hard time making this one work” (96). Later, Foer notes that Michael Pollan makes a similar comparison, claiming that vegetarians refuse to face reality, while Foer disagrees, noting the forgetting needed in eating meat. The crucial element of the factory farmer’s stance is that “we” are “having such a hard time,” when factory farming is a major contributor to the main issues facing the world today. Taking into consideration Foer’s review of the lagoons of animal waste destroying land, the excess grains and other feed crops used to feed animals despite the inefficiency of eating animals, and the discrepancy between food waste and starvation, neither the factory farmer nor Pollan have considered the ineffective nature of the farming of animals. If the goal was truly to fix or improve the world, then Foer implies that vegetarianism is one way to work toward that goal, while factory farming is actively making these issues worse.

However, Foer also presents additional ways to view the issues of environmentalism and starvation. His grandmother refused to abandon her diet even while starving, which implies that people around the world might do the same. Even if factory farming could produce enough meat to feed the world, there are many people who would still refuse to eat meat. In the meantime, food waste implies that some portion of the meat produced by factory farming is not being consumed. Considering these issues, the lagoons of waste and mass amounts of crops fed to animals become a clear and unnecessary burden on the environment.