In this article, Bradley D. Rowe discusses the controversy over comments by Dan Cathy, the founder of Chick-fil-A (a fast food company based in the U.S.), who in 2012 made public statements supporting “traditional” marriage. Rowe uses the debate as a springboard into a discussion of intersectionality, posthumanism, and gastro-aesthetics, weaving together multiple threads of thought to imagine a way that the incident could have been approached from a non-speciesist intersectional perspective. Rowe hopes that his analysis will encourage reflection on the numerous “hierarchies of domination” that make up an issue like the Chick-fil-A controversy, and allow for multiple layers of interrogation, with the aim to “demonstrate that the plight of nonhumans is not a second-rate subdivision of critical theory or social activism.”

In 2012, Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A, was sharply criticized for public statements he made in support of “traditional marriage,” that is, marriage between one man and one woman. The position was not necessarily a surprising one, as the Chick-fil-A company had long been associated with various Christian / religious initiatives, but it generated a great deal of controversy nonetheless. Numerous protests against the company were organized, receiving widespread media attention, but as Rowe notes in his article, “even in light of the media attention this case drew, the billions of sentient birds who are subjected to the unimaginable cruelty of modern factory farming and industrial slaughtering remained invisible. As both friends and foes of Chick-fil-A turned to social media, they single-mindedly focused on humans while ignoring the animals whose flesh comprises the almost 300 million chicken sandwiches Chick-fil-A serves annually.” In some cases, protesters of the company were quoted as saying “This is not about chicken.” How do we understand the absence of chickens from a debate over the religious views of the CEO of a company that exploits chickens for profit? Rowe posits that through posthumanism, as well as a closer introspection into the aesthetics of food, we may find a starting point. He writes: “Posthumanists want to join the protests outside Chick-fil-A restaurants, but in doing so, call attention to another facet of dispute: ‘You’re right: We are not arguing over chicken. And that’s the problem. Maybe we should.’ The commentary about real people behind the debate ought to be amended: Realize, too, that behind the debate are real nonhuman people—millions of sociable, intelligent, curious, sentient animal persons.”

Of course, Rowe recognizes that his insistence on a posthumanist position, including chickens in a debate that is (ostensibly) about humans is controversial in and of itself. Part of Rowe’s assertion is the recognition that one of the ways that human oppression functions is through the process of animalization. Members of oppressed groups will often speak of being made to feel “like animals” or of being “treated like animals.” Rowe notes that this comparison itself simultaneously speaks to and obscures what it means to be an animal: the abusive treatment of non-humans is taken as a given, as a baseline through which we describe human experience. From a discussion of posthumanism, Rowe moves into a discussion of gastro-aesthetics, that is, “a broader […] discussion about how human faculties generate knowledge and what is worthy of philosophical study.” We must recognize the power of the act of eating meat in and of itself to shape our consciousness. “Meat eating is a unique somatic practice that dissolves the self/other dichotomy,” he says, and “by eating dead animal flesh, we transform it—more precisely, the remains of a once living and breathing nonhuman person, a he or she—into our physicality.” In other words, our domination of non-humans, and our desire not to be animalized or similarly oppressed, goes far beyond what we are able to intellectualize. Eating meat shapes our consciousness on a level that is primordial.

Rowe hopes that recognition of these dynamics can help to foster a different approach to the Chick-fil-A controversy, one that is “about animals—both human and nonhuman.” It is a nuanced, and perhaps optimistic view, but Rowe ends on a positive, hopeful note: “Today, we know that we don’t want to be dehumanized, but I look forward to the day when we don’t want to be deanimalized.”

Original Abstract:
Not Available