In analysing vegetarianism then, many social scientists have shared the assumption that meat-eating and vegetarianism are representative of two unique and oppositional world-views (Twigg 1979, 1983, Adams 1990, Fiddes 1992, Spencer 1994, Cox 1994). The apparent barbarity and domination inherent in meat-eating is juxtaposed to the gentle humanity of vegetarianism, and each dietary practice is seen to represent an opposing conceptualisation of the relationship between humans and the natural world. (..) Meat-eating and vegetarianism are thus portrayed as two distinct dietary practices in Britain, each accompanied by its own unique world-view. My own research in South-East London, however, does not support this conclusion because the latter applies a universal meaning to meat that does not stand up to scrutiny. Importantly, my evidence suggests that meat-eating and vegetarianism are not as different as is often suggested. In many instances it is impossible to see a clear distinction between the diets of the two groups. Furthermore, rather than holding exclusive sets of beliefs, meateaters and vegetarians share many similar views on health, animal rights, factory farming and environmental issues. (..) In certain circumstances eating meat was also one outcome of a respect for nature and, for one environmental group in South-East London, was the culmination of a life lived in symbiosis with the environment. In an apparent rewriting of the Enlightenment principle of ‘power over nature’ eating meat can be the ultimate acknowledgement of the power of nature.

beidzot kāds pasaka, ka visi gaļēdāji nav ļaunuma iemiesojumi. un to, ko es domāju, kopš pirmās reizes, kad nokāva teļu, ko biju barojusi no pudelītes - es varu izrādīt cieņu, viņu apēdot.