The Politics of (not) Eating Animals

In this research project I examine the politics of eating animals by focusing on deliberative practices surrounding eating nonhuman animals in The Netherlands. In the project I do not argue that humans should stop eating animals, but instead focus on underlying patterns of exclusion that target not only nonhuman but also human animals. Specifically, I investigate the role that language plays in processes of democratic inclusion and exclusion. This project aims to: a) conceptualize eating animals as a political problem instead of just an ethical choice and b) investigate the relationship between language, power and democracy in current liberal democracies. Theories of deliberation (Young 2000) and poststructural theories of language (Derrida 2008, Lyotard 1988) have shown that what we view as proper language is at least partly formed by power relations, and that power differences impact whose voices are heard. In current liberal democracies, who gets to speak gets to determine the ‘rules of the game’ (Tully 2008) and so who gets to speak is one of the, if not the, most important democratic questions. In order to develop an understanding of linguistic-democratic exclusionary mechanisms, the project first investigates three cases in which human and nonhuman animal groups have political voice to different degrees: a) religious slaughter, b) Black veganism and c) Beter leven keurmerk (‘Better life label’). Building on this examination, I conduct a philosophical analysis about political voice and silencing, and investigate how democratic practices can be made more inclusive. Improving deliberative practices is not just relevant for marginalized groups: improving democratic debate is needed to tackle the major problems of our time, such as the climate crisis and loss of biodiversity.