In the first part of this article, we examined the psychological disorders associated with those humans who are cruel and abusive to non-human animals, and the scientific data, likewise, associated with those who are forced into professional positions where animal cruelty would be an integral part of the career. I think typically the way academics tend to view situational aspects of human life, that matter, on a deeper level, is primarily from their particular branch of academia. I view things first and foremost from the individual level, and how it affects our neural processes and behaviours. However, it’s also very important to view these from a broader societal vantage point, in order to get a sharper image of the entire picture. What has been an amalgam of intriguing and troubling, to me, is why being cruel towards animals is deemed utterly abhorrent, in some contexts, in life, but yet completely ubiquitous in other contexts. Acceptable. Even applauded. The law of logic itself would say that being cruel towards animals cannot be both acceptable, and unacceptable, simultaneously. Inherently good, and bad, concurrently. But yet, this is very much the reality of the society in which we live. In this second part, I decided to look at it through a sociological lens, and try to decipher why this very paradoxical dichotomy seems to persist in society. I must confess, sociology has only been an area of little interest to me, in the past, where it relevantly intersected with psychology. My area of interest is primarily in how the human mind works, and how that manifests itself in our behaviours, our actions, our thoughts, and beliefs. I love discovering how people tick. Every new person encountered in my life, is a new puzzle to solve, a new mind to dive into, and backstroke in the sea of the subconscious. Sociology, on the other hand, is more focused on how society at large influences those behaviours, in context, put simplistically. So I must confess, it did require a good amount of research on my part, but I am ever in search of knowledge to acquire, and this has proved interesting indeed. So, first question is, why does any ubiquitous aspect of life, persist in human society? The answer, and I think we’re all aware of this – social norms. Social norms can be a tricky thing, to track, and often have little actual logic associated with them, especially in comparison to what we purport is moral, in society. What is right and what is normal are often at odds, even when most people agree that what is normal is ethically wrong. This seems like a paradox, but yet this is a paragon of the society we live in, and the reason for which the subject of sociology exists, to study, and attempt to solve, these dilemmas. But what exactly is a social norm, as defined by sociology? A norm is a practice or belief that is widespread within a society, and from which deviation is discouraged or punished. In addition, part of the reason a norm is encouraged and deviation discouraged is the fact that it is normal. Norms can be further divided into descriptive and social norms. Descriptive norms are those norms which people conform to on the condition that most of their peers conform to them. Social norms are those which are followed on the condition that most of their peers conform to them and most of their peers believe they should conform to them. Animal consumption is perpetuated by both descriptive and social norms. As a society, we generally believe that eating meat is necessary, natural, and/or pleasurable. But above all, we view it as normal. People who deviate from the norm and choose to abstain from meat or other animal products are viewed as being abnormal. Speaking personally, I’ve always been more attracted to what would be deemed abnormal, in terms of social trends, so viewing the situation retrospectively, I should have connected to veganism, so much sooner. The obstacle presented before me was less so much of a deviation from a social norm, but just a lack of access to the available information about callous industries such as the dairy industry, but also a lack of access to information regarding plant-based diets. I often wish I had become the tenacious researcher I am now, at a younger age. Anyway, back to abnormal groups. For the individual, becoming a member of these abnormal groups can be inherently unattractive, as we have a psychological desire to fit in. Few people want to be made to feel like social pariah’s in regards to our behaviours or beliefs, so few people challenge these social norms. Ironically, those in society who are historically celebrated most, categorised as innovators, are the ones who dared to. This is a matter of confidence, a positive trait seemingly lacking in median society, and therefore seen as something incredibly attractive and rare. But there is always social and societal judgement, pressure placed upon those who dare to change, in the form of friends, family, romantic partners, and strangers who we interact with on a daily basis. The compositional structure of society makes this particularly arduous. The way people grow up, circumspectly – their family, friends, local community, life experiences, and a multitude of other factors, are responsible for an individuals social values. Those who tend to lean more towards liberal values, will often view animals from a vantage point of fairness, equity, and justice. Those with more conservative values, may tend to view the situation from a scope of patriotic or national superiority, and that we are a more advanced society for treating animals better than our international counterparts, elsewhere. We see more people with liberal values, as trending societally, towards empathy and care for animals, but it exists from all people of a particular insight, on the social spectrum. In order for society to be malleable to social change, in a more equitable direction, it requires change at the individual level. We often discount what we are capable of accomplishing as individuals, and people tend to utilise appeals to futility to be apathetic, sadly. But if one person changes, and influences a friend, who can then influence a family member, who can then influence a co-worker, and so on, and so forth, this tends to create a domino effect, which can influence society, profoundly. Eventually, a group of people form, who can collectively influence, and when enough clusters of collective bodies formulate, to that end, societal change can occur. So, what can we conclude from all this? Well, that little bit of mental fortitude, to weather the storm of society’s judgement upon deviation from social norms, can create incredible positive change for society, and this is what we have observed, historically, in social justice movements. Another thing that can be incredibly powerful, is influencing the right voices. Certain social personalities can rally societally, charismatically, and targeting those types of individuals can be a powerful tool. These types of personalities have achieved incredible acts of compassion, kindness, and terrible acts of monstrous deceit, respectively, throughout human history. So next, I’d love to examine, in terms of sociological justifications, the particular reasoning which individuals may give, for meat consumption, in relation to the moral dilemma of social norms versus individual ideals of right and wrong. We seem, as a society, to put emphasis on animal welfare, so there is the distinct and universal understanding that animals need to be cared for, and are worthy of that moral consideration, but yet simultaneously society may tell me, it’s ok to actually kill an animal, for food. Brutally, even. Are there any studies on the issue, and what did they yield? Research conducted by the University Of Exeter, in 2022, has shown that young people of school and university age-span, are highly conscious of animal welfare, regardless of whether they deem it acceptable to eat animals or their products. Adults, by contrast, tend to use social-based reasoning to justify the consumption of meat, citing that it is ‘natural’ and ‘necessary’ to do so – although they too will lean upon moral considerations if they take the counter view. In this new study, the researchers sampled more than 400 individuals, across three distinct age ranges: 9—11, 18—21 and 29—59. Each was asked to evaluate the acceptability of eating animals and explain their reasons for this. They were further asked whether it was acceptable to eat animal products such as milk and eggs. The researchers analysed the responses and separated them into those that related to a moral domain – issues of welfare, harm, fairness – those that related to a social domain – such as whether it is natural, normal or necessary to eat or not eat meat – and those that contained a mixture of the two. Overall, 77% of adults said it was ‘okay’ to eat animals, compared to 51% of children. Within this population of children, the researchers found there was still a strong focus upon moral considerations, primarily animal welfare. In these cases, some of the children stated it’s ‘okay’ to eat animals but still expressed concern for animal welfare, visibly wrestling with an introspective moral dilemma. Adults who felt that eating animals was ‘okay’ drew more heavily upon social reasoning, or a blend of social and moral domains, suggesting that it was ‘natural’ and ‘necessary’ to eat meat for a healthy diet, but that issues of ‘humane slaughter’ and ‘animal welfare’ were important. Fair to say, adult cognition, within this study, was heavily directed by social norms. The words “humane” (the sense of being compassionate, benevolent), and “slaughter” (killing an animal, who, in reality, was completely healthy, and did not want to die) – a word synonymous and interchangeable with “murder” – are completely antagonistic, and therefore, when amalgamated, form an oxymoron. What can we conclude from this as a society? Well, we are willing to utilise inherently illogical, paradoxical terminology in order to perform mental gymnastics in justifying our clearly uncivilised, uncompassionate, callous actions. Ask yourself if doing this, in a human context – human, just another species within the family of great apes – could be corrosive or pernicious to the stability of our purportedly civilised, socially-just, society. Another research project I recently reviewed, was a research project conducted by Clifton P. Flynn, from the Department Of Sociology at The University Of South Carolina, entitled “A Sociological Analysis Of Animal Cruelty.” My original intention was to make this a segment in my first article, regarding the psychology of animal abuse/cruelty, but I believe the sociological nature of the article is more beneficial to observing from that very vantage point. The report spotlighted the fact that animal abuse is often analysed at the individual level, and little attention placed upon social and cultural factors. I confess, as a perpetual student of psychology, this can often be overlooked in psychoanalysis. The study concluded adolescent males torture animals in response to social rejection or to gain the approval of their peers. The highest percentage of animal abusers are also male. Committing animal cruelty is likely to distort or inhibit empathy, making it even easier to disregard the feelings and lives of other beings – animal and human (Ascione, 1993). This aligns with my own findings in prior article. In terms of social pressures, Clifton found there was some evidence, both anecdotal and empirical, that teenage boys may engage in animal cruelty to gain approval from their peers and to prove their masculinity. The public’s attitudes toward animals are “ambivalent and contradictory.” The next aspect of social groups he examined was in regards to religious practises. The Judeo-Christian tradition contributes to norms that enable humans to mistreat animals (Singer, 1990). Christianity’s anthropocentric view that humans are superior to animals and have dominion over them reinforces animals’ status as less powerful beings, making it easier to exploit and harm them. A study of Christian groups in Australia found that members of more conservative denominations held less humane attitudes toward animals (Bowd & Bowd, 1989). On a personal note, archaic religious traditions and oppressive practises, are the leading cause for atheist population growing exponentially, in society. Where in previous generations, the vast majority of society would have grown up in religious households. Unsurprising, as society evolves more liberally, and socially-conscious, that religion would quickly become more inherently unpopular. The study lastly examined society’s legal undercurrent, and how laws dictate social norms. Legally, animals are considered property, and this makes them easy targets for abuse. Because humans determine the laws and norms regarding how animals are treated – which animals are worthy of legal protection – and given the ineffective response of the criminal justice system to animal cruelty, abusers hold positions of superior power and are not likely to be deterred from their harmful actions. In my own experience, so many people blindly adhere to the notion that by legality, anything is just. In philosophy, this is a fallacious line of reasoning known as “appealing to the law.” If this were solid reasoning, then why is the law constantly influx, evolving on an annual basis? Society tends to view misbehaving by its legal consequences, less so from a moral framework. Which, to circle back, is a product of sociological conditioning. The law itself is only now, in current era, drawing intersections between those who are harmful to animals, and those who are harmful to humans as a result. The legal system is slow to change, but deeply needs to address animal cruelty as a serious issue and consequence, for crime and violence in society. What seems to be the case, to myself, examining the subject matter in detail, is that society, neuroscience, social science, and other areas of academia, tend to acknowledge the intrinsic worth that animal companionship and interaction has, on both the human psyche and the human experience. For instance, it has been well-documented how emotional support animals, like dogs, can alleviate symptoms of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and so on. Anecdotally, I recently discovered an animal sanctuary in the USA, The Gentle Barn, has a therapeutic method called “cow hugging therapy,” where individuals in the community, who have experienced some severe trauma, can just come along and spend time with their rescued cows, give them hugs, and just sit with them in the field, and experience a beautiful but transient symbiosis, in which nature intended. And people like a local woman, who had recently lost her young son, in an accident, have been able to find some peace, just by participating in this therapy. While at the same time, all of the same scientific disciplines related to human cognition, acknowledge how corrosive to healthy human psychology, it can be to be abusive or cruel to animals. But yet meanwhile, in a sociological sense, we deem it completely socially acceptable, to needlessly kill animals to stimulate our taste pleasure centres, in the brain. But yet if I were to kill an animal due to the way it stimulated my other sensory pleasure centres, like my vision, or auditory system, meaning, if I just loved the way killing animals looked, or sounded, society would deem me to be psychologically troubled. This clearly illogical concept, is a manifestation of how powerful societal norms can be, and how terribly difficult they can be, to penetrate. In philosophy, we actually deem appealing to societal norms, as a justification for our actions, to be a fallacious line of reasoning known as the appeal to normality, under the ad populum umbrella. In terms of what the science itself shows on this particular area, I examined quite a few peer reviewed articles and studies. My own perspective, and even the experience of professionals in the field, only goes so far. It’s always of paramount importance we look at what the objective data tells us. In this case, perhaps it can shed some light on where societally, our morals and norms seem to conflictory. One article published by Nicolas Delon, from New College of Florida, Philosophy & Environmental Studies department, in 2018, stated : “social change is slow and difficult. Social change for animals is formidably slow and difficult. Advocates and scholars alike have long tried to change attitudes and convince the public that eating animals is wrong. The topic of norms and social change for animals has been neglected, which explains in part the relative failure of the animal protection movement to secure robust support reflected in social and legal norms. Moreover, animal ethics has suffered from a disproportionate focus on individual attitudes and behavior at the expense of collective behavior, social change, and empirical psychology. If what we want to change is behavior on a large scale, norms are important tools.” The article examines a multitude of issues, from why tackling the dilemma of animal rights, at a societal level, and challenging these social norms has been overlooked, to customary practices, how the law influences societal behaviour, to how different types of social norms influence us in society. In a conclusory sense, it examines prior social justice movements, what we can learn specifically in terms of fighting for animal rights and breaking down those social norms, and what we can learn from sociological trends in terms of how society is influenced, and movements generate momentum. For any activist, I highly recommend the read. The article is available on scientific research website nature.com – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-018-0194-5 Another peer-reviewed paper was written by the late Dr Deidre Wicks, interdisciplinary teacher at University Of Newcastle, Australia, and lifetime animal rights activist, in 2011. This paper entitled “Silence And Denial In Everyday Life – The Case Of Animal Suffering,” was the one I discovered which echo’d most, my own perplexity of how seemingly good individuals, in society, could participate in the callous, horrific process that is meat production, and other animal exploitation in society, such as animal testing. So this was certainly intriguing and worthy of my time. Dr Wicks fixated the study around the concept of denial. The ubiquitous denial that society partakes in, on a daily basis, to circumvent both the previously aforementioned societal judgement that comes with deviation from norms, and the denial of social norms being immoral, in the form of our silence. Denial is a profound and powerful self-delusion technique, and comes in the forms of various of our particular cognitive biases. The examination of this was at societal level, and not that of the individual psychology, or that associated with societal influence. The paper examines denial in many different contexts in life, which we partake in to avoid unpleasurable cognitive dissonance, and how we have observed this, historically, in previous major societal injustices, that required justice movements, to correct. I had long considered the concept of denial myself, having interacted with, and debated so many non-vegans, deeply in denial about the subject, so it was very interesting to study the sociological origins of this. After summary of the different mechanisms of denial, in conclusion, Dr Wicks poses some evidence-based propositions into moving towards societal acknowledgement of animal suffering, though challenging, again, historically-seemingly entirely possible. As activists, with a clear strategy and effective methodology, we have an incredible ability to affect change at individual levels which snowball into justice movements. Again, a must read for my fellow activists. The article is available on research website pubmed.com: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552202 Lastly, a meta analysis of 33 studies was conducted in 2020 by a pair of psychologists from the Department Of Psychology, at The University Of Oslo, in Norway. The study was conducted in regards to the psychological dissociation from society in relation to meat consumption. Dissociation itself, is a psychological concept, whereby we disconnect from emotional feelings, or thoughts, in the interest of achieving something. So this study would seemingly be more appropriate for my prior article about the psychology of animal abuse. However, the study was about collective societal dissociation, so it would be a very interesting read for a sociological dissection. The dissociation in question, was coined some years back as the “meat paradox,” a conflicting philosophical concept, where society enjoys the experience of meat consumption, but simultaneously dislikes the harm of animals, which in reality, meat production entails, and cognitive dissonance ensues. Interestingly, the study spotlighted the concept of societal denial, mentioned in the previous examined study, as one of the key examples of this very detachment, in conjunction with societal pro-meat attitudes, advertisements, propaganda, etc, and societal claims of meat necessity for nutritional requirements. The general focus of the study was an examination of these societal narratives and tactics, in response to the dissociation we experience from the meat paradox, coming from a larger examination of 33 prior studies, on the subject, respectively. Dissociation, previously, only being something of a hypothesis on the issue, the meta analysis attempts to quantify. The conclusion of the study was that due to a number of compelling societal factors, we collectively use psychological dissociation as a strategy to subvert the cognitive dissonance we experience from killing animals, and that disconnect is influenced by individual, contextual, and cultural factors. Interestingly, women, consumers residing in industrialised societies in the west, and the younger generation, are particularly influenced by this. The study is extensive and available on academic study website science.com : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019566631930724X Social norms can be a powerful and challenging obstacle, for social change. These norms can be the reasoning for why even seemingly moral, decent entities, partake in behaviours they know to be unacceptable. The data shows that despite our understanding of certain aspects of society being elementally wrong, certain cultural and social narratives perpetuate the cycle. The human condition can be incredibly selfish, but also persuasive to relevant information from prolific amounts of people. In terms of our justifications for this, likewise, the available scientific data spotlights the fact we perform an array of mental gymnastics to suit our desires, when the opportunity presents itself. Society is conflicted about meat consumption, and has been for quite some time. What is clear though, and what sociologists have observed in terms of observational trends from prior social justice movements, is that with enough tenacious and compelling voices, society is malleable to change. Our individual actions matter a great deal. One person can influence another, and so on and so forth, until a domino effect results in a social justice movement, where society can move in a more kind and equitable direction.