Eating Animals

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2009

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Key Figures

Themes

Symbols & Motifs

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Symbols & Motifs

Chicken and Carrots/Thanksgiving Turkey

Two meals that Jonathan Safran Foer discusses in Eating Animals that have a symbolic relevance are his grandmother’s chicken and carrots and the Thanksgiving tradition of eating turkey. Each meal is meaningful in its own way, and each meal contains a critical meat component. Chicken and carrots is the one meal that Ethel Safran can claim as a recipe, and it has earned her the title of “Greatest Chef Who Ever Lived” (15) in her family. Foer wonders if his son should be allowed to eat meat so that he, too, can understand why his great-grandmother is worthy of that title, highlighting the importance of the bonds and emotions evoked by specific meals. However, Foer resolves that his son can get to know their family and traditions even without that meal, since it is the stories surrounding the food that matter.

Similarly, Foer plans to omit turkey from the first Thanksgiving that he will hold in his own home. At first, he worries that omitting the turkey will ruin the holiday, but he resolves that the absence of the traditional meat component can become “inspiring” as he doubts that joy of the day would be lessened “by the hunger to eat that particular animal” (251). As with the chicken and carrots, it is not the animal being consumed that carries meaning, but the situation in which the meal is eaten. Both Thanksgiving turkey and Ethel’s chicken and carrots serve to represent the meaning behind meals, which exists independent of the individual components of a recipe. Each is a symbol for the inherent table fellowship and bonding that occurs in each meal, and potentially the increase in inspiration and conversation that can be brought about in the absence of meat.

George

George is Foer’s dog, which he and his wife adopted despite Foer’s longstanding disinterest in dogs as pets. George is not a character in the sense that Foer does not try to portray George’s perspective, but Foer is open to the idea that George has a perspective, feelings, and meaningful experiences. As such, George becomes a representation of all animals that people perceive as having important experiences. For many readers, like Foer, this would be a pet, like a cat or a dog, but George’s symbolic purpose is to expand that view to encompass the animals that become meat, as well. In fact, Foer intentionally presents a recipe for cooking dog meat in the same chapter that introduces George, highlighting the comparison between animals that are used for food and those that are used for companionship.

George serves as a beginning point in Foer’s proposal for the consumption of dog meat, in which he debunks common reasons given for abstaining from dog meat. Dogs are not companions in all parts of the world, nor is dog meat unhealthy for consumption. Dogs are no more intelligent than pigs, and yet eating pigs is not generally considered to be immoral in the way that eating dogs is for Americans. Most importantly, pigs, chickens, and cows are equally capable of “a way of processing and experiencing the world that is intrinsic and unique” (24), as Foer asserts for George. In defining the species barrier, Foer also uses the example of Knut the polar bear, who is safe from consumption.

Meaningful Differences

Foer explores a variety of minor improvements across factory farming, and he often notes that a change or improvement is significant or “matters.” In these situations, Foer uses a motif of meaningful difference, in which two bad things are compared “meaningfully” to remind the reader that both options are bad in comparison to an already acknowledged, better solution. For example, in discussing the quality of life and processing of chickens, Foer notes differences in “the percentage of birds that are scalded alive” and “the amount of fecal soup their bodies absorb,” which he calls “differences that matter” (136). The difference “matters” because it could mean that one or more less chickens are scalded alive, or it could mean that less diseased fluid remains in meat that is then sold at market. However, the difference does not matter in the broader consideration that no chickens should ever be scalded alive, and no amount of “fecal soup” should be in the meat people buy in the store.

This same phrasing occurs in most situations in which Foer is calling attention to the minimal changes that have occurred in factory farming. In discussing the use of a larger shed for pregnant pigs, Foer reminds the reader that Paul Willis’s pigs run free and are not confined to a small space. Likewise, Foer reminds the reader that the pregnant pig will still be placed in an even smaller farrowing crate when it comes time to give birth, another factor that does not exist on Willis’s farm. Though Foer is legitimate in acknowledging that small victories are still victories, he is also pointing to the existing, humane methods of farming that would be much better than minor improvements.