Normalising the Unthinkable

1077: 

Ed: CJ

For those of us who try to observe the principles of harmlessness and veganism, it’s difficult to understand how so many people can accept what happens to animals without being revolted.  How do people come to accept what is so obviously an evil, and think nothing of it?  Perhaps it is connected to the banality of evil.

Originally, the idea of the 'banality of evil' came from Hannah Arendt, describing in the1961 trial, the monstrous deeds of Otto Adolf Eichmann – notably his ability to inflict such suffering and death upon a vast number of Jews and how that contrasted so markedly with the appearance of the man himself.  She said:  "His deeds were monstrous, but the doer ... was quite ordinary, commonplace, and neither demonic nor monstrous".  In his book Triumph of the Market, E.S Herman suggests that normalising the unthinkable, doing terrible things in an organized and systematic way, rests on a process "whereby ugly, degrading, murderous, and unspeakable acts become routine and are accepted as 'the way things are done' ".  He goes on to say, "There is usually a division of labour in doing and rationalising the unthinkable, with the direct brutalizing and killing done by one set of individuals; others keeping the machinery of death in order; still others producing the implements of killing, or working on improving technology."

Today, the process through which farm animals must be put to turn them into cutlets or sausages for the dinner table, has been perfected.  But it is all the more ugly for that.  And the ugliness is so obvious that it’s wise of the 'Industry' to keep it hidden.  It might have been true, when Dr. Samuel Johnson avowed that "We would kill a cow rather than forego eating meat, but visits to slaughterhouses have made quite a few people into vegetarians" .  Today, the Animal Industry has wised up by keeping their doings secret.  Members of the general public are never allowed into abattoirs or vivisection laboratories or factory farms, so we never get to see what goes on there.

What we do see, are picture-book cows grazing in paddocks.  It seems so benign and so much a part of our 'normal world' that it doesn’t seem close to unthinkable brutality.  It’s all been normalised.  It’s all become acceptable.

Quoting Herman again, "Normalisation of the unthinkable comes easily when money, status, power, and jobs are at stake.  In relation to the instruments and machinery"… (in relation to animals in our case, machinery inflicted on animals) ... "intellectuals will be dredged up to justify their production and use".

The cruelty of intensive farming, for instance, is rationalised by the fear of competitors taking business away from local industry.  It is suggested that, "If it wasn't me somebody else would do it".  But perhaps most important of all, the great engine which keeps this whole process going - the consumer, the market - is based on normality.  It is important that the end product is attractive enough to sell and the buyer keen enough to buy it, which makes it logical that consumers are ignorant of process.

From Herman’s book again:

"A cover story of Newsweek some years ago, illustrating U.S. consumption of meat by showing livestock walking into a human mouth, elicited many protests - people don't like to be reminded that steaks are obtained from slaughtered animals; they like to imagine that they are manufactured in factories, possibly out of biomass". . . "Our technical superiority reflects our moral superiority.  One must keep in mind that we are dealing with lesser creatures.  And this in turn allows the routinisation of violence and the banality of evil."

Arendt says: "Evil is a surface phenomenon.  The more superficial someone is, the more likely will he be to yield to evil.  Thought tries to reach some depth, to go to (the) roots, and the moment it concerns itself with evil, it is frustrated because there is nothing.  That is its 'banality'.  Only the good has depth and can be radical." 

"The moral and ethic standards based on habits and customs have shown that they can just be changed by a new set of rules of behaviour, dictated by the current society".

I suppose vegans are awaiting such a society to dictate this new set of rules.  In the meantime we are offering our own suggestions.

My last quote: (Herman) "It seems that for most people, it is better to do nothing, not because the world would then be changed for the better, but because only on this condition could they go on living with themselves." 

(Ed: CJ)