Context, orders of worth, and the justification of meat consumption practices

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Context, orders of worth, and the justification of meat consumption practices. / Thorslund, Cecilie Agnete H; Lassen, Jesper.

In: Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 57, No. Suppl. 1, 2017, p. 836–858.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Thorslund, CAH & Lassen, J 2017, 'Context, orders of worth, and the justification of meat consumption practices', Sociologia Ruralis, vol. 57, no. Suppl. 1, pp. 836–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12143

APA

Thorslund, C. A. H., & Lassen, J. (2017). Context, orders of worth, and the justification of meat consumption practices. Sociologia Ruralis, 57(Suppl. 1), 836–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12143

Vancouver

Thorslund CAH, Lassen J. Context, orders of worth, and the justification of meat consumption practices. Sociologia Ruralis. 2017;57(Suppl. 1):836–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12143

Author

Thorslund, Cecilie Agnete H ; Lassen, Jesper. / Context, orders of worth, and the justification of meat consumption practices. In: Sociologia Ruralis. 2017 ; Vol. 57, No. Suppl. 1. pp. 836–858.

Bibtex

@article{25169613c1f247609e2dcdc7ce9555b8,
title = "Context, orders of worth, and the justification of meat consumption practices",
abstract = "Although animal welfare is felt to be important by consumers, behavioural patterns do not fully reflect this. Rather than relating this attitude-behaviour gap to hypocrisy, this article, building on pragmatic sociological theory and an empirical study, focuses on context-dependent moral evaluations. An analysis of focus-group interviews conducted in three countries shows that meat-related consumption practices involve several competing sets of moral conventions, and the results demonstrate that public concerns about animal welfare vary depending on whether they relate to an everyday or production context. In the former, animal welfare does not play a big role, and given this it can be argued that people are not hypocritical, since the practices and perceptions are actually united within the given context. It is concluded that the lack of civic justifications in the context of everyday life calls for new ways of making animal welfare relevant in this context in order to support consumers in moving towards products with high standards of animal welfare.",
author = "Thorslund, {Cecilie Agnete H} and Jesper Lassen",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1111/soru.12143",
language = "English",
volume = "57",
pages = "836–858",
journal = "Sociologia Ruralis",
issn = "0038-0199",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "Suppl. 1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Context, orders of worth, and the justification of meat consumption practices

AU - Thorslund, Cecilie Agnete H

AU - Lassen, Jesper

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Although animal welfare is felt to be important by consumers, behavioural patterns do not fully reflect this. Rather than relating this attitude-behaviour gap to hypocrisy, this article, building on pragmatic sociological theory and an empirical study, focuses on context-dependent moral evaluations. An analysis of focus-group interviews conducted in three countries shows that meat-related consumption practices involve several competing sets of moral conventions, and the results demonstrate that public concerns about animal welfare vary depending on whether they relate to an everyday or production context. In the former, animal welfare does not play a big role, and given this it can be argued that people are not hypocritical, since the practices and perceptions are actually united within the given context. It is concluded that the lack of civic justifications in the context of everyday life calls for new ways of making animal welfare relevant in this context in order to support consumers in moving towards products with high standards of animal welfare.

AB - Although animal welfare is felt to be important by consumers, behavioural patterns do not fully reflect this. Rather than relating this attitude-behaviour gap to hypocrisy, this article, building on pragmatic sociological theory and an empirical study, focuses on context-dependent moral evaluations. An analysis of focus-group interviews conducted in three countries shows that meat-related consumption practices involve several competing sets of moral conventions, and the results demonstrate that public concerns about animal welfare vary depending on whether they relate to an everyday or production context. In the former, animal welfare does not play a big role, and given this it can be argued that people are not hypocritical, since the practices and perceptions are actually united within the given context. It is concluded that the lack of civic justifications in the context of everyday life calls for new ways of making animal welfare relevant in this context in order to support consumers in moving towards products with high standards of animal welfare.

U2 - 10.1111/soru.12143

DO - 10.1111/soru.12143

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:84995376526

VL - 57

SP - 836

EP - 858

JO - Sociologia Ruralis

JF - Sociologia Ruralis

SN - 0038-0199

IS - Suppl. 1

ER -

ID: 172857492