Out of sight, out of mindIt could be said that the marginalization of animals in contemporary times is to some extent the result of evolutionary processes related to the emotion of disgust. Disgust, being the visceral reaction to the prospect of incorporating a harmful and diseased object, is an undeniably important evolutionary inheritance that keeps one away from what could make one sick. Raw meat is one of the few and almost universal arousers of disgust because it still shows animality. Only once the meat has been processed does it become acceptable and appetizing to eat. Disgust explains why raw meat viscerally repulses us, but the impulse to disguise animality could also be linked to the difficulty experienced in eating another sentient being, one you can look at and who looks at you. Thus the cow becomes beef; the pig becomes a pig; the deer becomes venison etc. These translations are also the result of the incorporation of commodifying animals and their use as our means of satisfying utility. The domination of animals is the domination of nature itself, a process of domination central to the life of patriarchal capitalism, which must always appropriate nature in new ways to expand. Here just think of the "real man" like the Marlboro man, the one who brings the bacon home. The relationship between animals, masculinity and capitalism is one of domination. The domination and control of animals in the commodity chain transforms them into raw material and as such what they leave behind after their death no longer belongs to the animal (beef is not the cow), but to the capitalist who can divide up the products obtained from raw materials (not only beef is obtained, but also offal, tripe and offal). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThis marginalization as an effect of domination becomes evident once animals are incorporated into the show; animal toys become reproductions of an image that can be possessed, animals are placed in zoos with the pretense of performing a techno-scientific function and domestic animals are isolated in the private sphere of the single-family household after having been purchased and sold in a market market. Clearly the domination and consequent marginalization of animals is the result of their position in the commodity chain. How is it, then, that the urban individual rejects meat consumption as exploitative and immoral, while the farmer who has raised this same animal with care and dedication is perfectly happy to “salt [the] pig?" Their relationship with raising animals and then consuming them is not one of but, but before and. Although the farmer can also be said to dominate the animals to gain economic benefits, their relationship is constitutive of each other, that is, the farmer and the animal become dependent on each other while maintaining a certain degree of autonomy. Their relationship is connected circularly, rather than connected as a chain, which is what happens in the commodity chain. The commodity chain attributes to us roles which, in Marxian terms, derive from our relationship with the means of production. Thus these roles are highly analogous to the Marxian conceptualization of social class. In this chain there are raw materials, producers and consumers. Returning to the issue at hand, it is precisely these roles attributed to class that explain the reluctance of the conscious urban individual to reject meat. As a consumer, it is the only political revolt that can be carried out within the confines of the system itself. Create the image of the consumer as.