Constructing Consumables and Consent: A Critical Analysis of Factory Farm Industry Discourse by Cathy B. Glenn

Summary: In this article Constructing Consumables and Consent: A Critical Analysis of Factory Farm Industry Discourse by Cathy Glenn the paper starts out with a brief outlook on animals and how they play a role in our lives and what exactly that role is. Next Glenn opens up with an introduction to what she will discuss and what she is arguing for. Glenn argues that in times now even more than past animals and nature are being seen as a commodity or virtual reality. Also that it is important to know the historical lineage that has led to thins such as advertisements of animals on TV’s and products. She talks about how discursive communities and ideas have helped from these false ideas or principles. Also that we have this idea of double speak and its misleading use by the farm industry to change or alter the image of animals to the viewers. This meaning it is altering or changing your words and phrases in such a way to make it sound like something other than what it actually is. She argues that animals are treated as resources and products and through the support of the industries and government it is kept this way. That the audience is taught to see them this way: for example calling the slaughtering of cows “animal agriculture” instead of “cow flesh industry”. Glenn also then goes into discussing the abuse of animals and the inhumane things we do to them that we define as humane through the changing of the image by ideal sand word choice such as “euthanasia” instead of “brutal torture”. Glenn argues that the farm industry uses this discourse to hide the foul treatment and torture because it saves them times, space and money. That in the end to the farmers and the buyers of the products: animals are just another wholesale product on the market. Then after discussing animals as a commodity she begins to go into animals as virtual reality. She argues that in this process of virtual reality the discourse acts in two ways the first is to sell the product and then the next is to make the nonhuman abused seem to disappear and be replaced with an image greater or pleasant. For example she discusses “happy Cows” and how this is misleading for the buyers: this portrays happy, intelligent, health and funny cows with family values. PETA is quoted in this article for its lawsuit against this campaign claiming it portrays the opposite of what it is actually like for cows living wise, health wise, happiness wise and so forth. She argues this is all in attempt to blur the line between reality and imagination or the line between human and other animals while reinforcing an approved human action (eating the animal). She overall in essence argues that we as human are simply attempting to take away their ability to hypothetically speak while and in order for us to speak for them through these virtual reality images and commercials and so forth. Finally she argues we must critically think and observe these things and whether they are around us and going on. That we must analyze and support those that are striving away from these discourses.

Synthesis: This article was very similar to the other reading we were assigned by John Swales. They both use the conceptual term and idea of discourse and a discourse community. In this article by Glenn the main focus is on this discourse community of farmers and those that need the food production. They have these terms and phrases they use and know what they mean but to others they see it for realistically what it would mean. I mean in saying this that the word collect to them may mean grab the next set of cows to kill but to others it just means get some cows together. This is right on the line with Swales who spends a lot of time discussing the importance of discourse communities having their own language and vocabulary.

Pre-reading:

1.I looked at the image of the organic cow milk. These are the little ones you can take on the go and poke with a straw. The animal image on this product is animated and I don’t know if it really affects my feeling towards the product because it is all I have really seen. Although this is true I would admit it makes it appear like it’s a lot of fun and taste amazing.

2.I don’t believe I have any connection to farm animals except for the fact that I am eating them and their products produced form them all the time. I Another thought I might mention is through friends, teachers and experiences I do believe I know some things about their culture most might not.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling:

1.      In her article Glenn discusses the discourse of factory farms and their use of advertisements, word choice and images. She talks about these main characteristics which are the commodity and virtual reality. She discusses and argues how the factory farm industry uses these to make their work approved and ethical. Also because it eliminates the consumers from recognizing the reality for the animals. They use these characteristics to sanitize their work and the process of it in multiple ways. For instance Glenn mentions how they change and alter words into a context that is broad and easily approved by the audience. They also use animations and commercials to make an image of the animals and the process look the way the want it to. Glenn argues how they will do things to make it look like a fun and safe process that’s enjoyed by all including the animals. I think that this is unethical because it hides the audience from the truth of the process and the harm being done to the animals. This may be so but the problem is that it is the audiences fault for not knowing the knowledge or not looking because the changing of words and animated cows on a milk container isn’t anywhere near unethical or illegal. The idea behind may be unethical but cannot be proven or ruled as such just based on the picture so I don’t think it really matters.

Applying and Exploring Ideas:

2.      Pick a company that sells “meat.” Do a little research on Google or some other search engine. Is it a factory farm? How can you tell? Was it easy to find out? Did they pretend to be a family farm? I decided to look at franks hotdogs and I could tell right away it was a factory farm. The company had a well-made website full of information. The site had its information well compiled and organized as well. The site had all this stuff about their family methods and how the “product” is treated with care and is of only the highest quality. I don’t think it was easy to find this out by their information but just by common sense as well as the information I just learned about the farmer’s factory vocabulary. I could tell by the way they talked about things in mentioning the product, items, process, collaboration and words like that. Also just by knowing that Franks is a big brand and in order to produce as much as it does it need these industrialized farms if you will. They didn’t necessarily pretend to be a family farm as they clearly made it known they had a lot of farms and production but they claimed to have family values and produce as though they are one.

4.I think that this was most relevant when we had African Americans as slaves. This is as close as it gets to me because they are just as human as everyone else and they were treated like a product being sold, destroyed (killed) and used to produce.

Opinion on Article: I think that this article is well written and makes some very serious arguments against farmer factories and the discourse of their community. This article makes strong point about their methods in distributing information through advertisements and images. Also it helped me with how I look at these products as well as analyze sources in general. The read was alright just not to fun or interesting but overall I learned some good information and will use this in the future.