Animal Liberation and Participatory Society
Thursday, June 25, 2009
[Contribution to the Reimagining Society Project hosted by ZCommunications]
Oppression and discrimination occurs across society in a variety of concurrent and interacting ways. While largely ignored or played down by the Left in general, Animal Advocacy and Liberation can be seen as a nexus for many progressive struggles. Meat and dairy industries, and others that rely on animals for profit, imprison and slaughter literally tens of billions animals each year[i]. The industry itself relies on low paid, often migrant labour, to work in stressful and often dangerous conditions [ii]. The creation of meat and animal based products in know to be environmentally devastating [iii], including ruining water systems, and the clearance of large tracks of forests for grazing. Tanneries, which are often located in developing countries with reduced environmental and worker protections, rely on dangerous and toxic chemicals [iv]; land clearing for cattle grazing threatens indigenous communities, creates soil erosion and threatens rainforests[v].
Like many facets of life in a globalized, neoliberal world, many if not most of the issues that concern the Left can be found within the meat and animal product industries. Importantly, on top of these concerns is the unnecessary enslavement and industrialized killing of sentient and feeling beings. Like previous explicitly oppressive systems the same arguments are used by many on the Left and Right as to why such oppressions are of little concern or must remain in place. With regards to the animals this system of prejudiced thought is known as anthropocentrism, where human concerns are placed as superior to non-human concerns. Like human slavery, misogyny and other forms of oppressive thought, those suffering as considered non-human, undeserving of acknowledgment of their agency and inherent worth. They are seen as commodities for those in power. That animals truly are non-human does not mean that they do not suffer from such systems and paradigms that humans have fought throughout history-the creation and justification of hierarchies based on artificial or biological distinctions.
Animal Liberation should not be a side issue to our other concerns. Meat and animal industries are industrialized creators of unhappiness, a nexus of the overlapping oppressions and exploitations that theories such as Complimentary Holism highlight. The Left must recognize that fighting for Animal Liberation is not just about the animals but confronting the wider systems at work that the animals die in their billions for. As Normon Solomon writes "Ideological assumptions gain power as they seem to disappear into the prevailing political scenery." [vi]. We must work beyond our own prejudices and habits to see that the long term picture for animals, for workers, for the environment, for social justice, requires a totalist analysis that is capable of expanding and recognising oppressive behaviours even in the most unassuming places so to step closer to ending all human made suffering.
Inherent in the Animal Liberation position is an anti-capitalist, or at least, anti-corporate/industrialist position. This critique is often dormant in Animal Liberation and advocacy efforts. However the nature of the animal industry is one that positions animals and their advocates in a position of antagonism. The forces of production are felt directly by the animals and are explicitly or implicitly challenged by animal liberation movements that challenge the use of living creatures are mere objects of production. The barbarism of profit and efficiency are most evident in meat production and this alienation is highlighted in gory detail, though in a different context, by the movement. The elements that are present within Animal Liberation arguments need to be expanded, to incorporate a wider critique, just as the Left has the moral and conceptual capability to expand our horizons.
Stopping animal exploitation and the industries developed around animal use would see government subsidies and damaging industry externalities cease to be at the public's expense. The fast food industry would be severely affected, along with eating habits. Without the cheap and abundant meat and dairy products, with externalities of production and labour shouldered by the environment, a casualized workforce, and the global South, companies such as McDonald's, KFC and Burger King, along with chain supermarkets and food companies, would be unable to keep costs low and profits high. This would force a change to more sustainable food products and possibly farming techniques. The epidemics of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and cholesterol that plague Western nations would be addressed from efforts at reducing meat consumption and changing eating practices [vii]. To have such an understanding comes from learning about the real impact that our diets have, of seeing the damage and pain that's created by meat and animal products. The development of such knowledge can often be revelatory enough to recognize the excesses and abuses present in throughout society.
Think for a moment about the impact of a greatly reduced or nonexistent mass animal based industry. Like previous moments when the connections between war, race, sexism, and class emerged, we need to see how addressing these issues along with animal liberation efforts is not only strategically necessary but morally necessary too.
By working for first better conditions and then the abolition of slaughterhouses then that's one less industry profiting from relying on illegal and migrant workers who have limited ability to push for better working conditions and rights. By seeking mass change or abolition of slaughterhouses, dairy farms and tanneries then huge steps are taken in reducing our carbon footprint on the Earth [viii]. Efficiency is enhanced, land use more sustainable, rainforests less threatened. The impacts of these damaging industries would also cease to be felt by the poorest peoples of the world and the more isolated towns in the developed world [ix]. Water sources would be free from toxins [x]. Oceans replenished from overfishing. The first step in such efforts is to challenge our own comforts and eating habits, to question whether our own objections or dismissals of animal liberation arguments are due to their direct challenge to our own behaviours and desires. The impact of modern society's reliance on fossil fuels has been well documented yet the similar impact of our current farming and dietary decisions has not been proportionally addressed. A change of diet is one simple but quite revolutionary step among many towards addressing these wider systems of oppression and exploitation.
Progressive economic models such as Participatory Economics (Parecon) have much to offer Animal Liberation efforts. Critical theories such as Complimentary Holism can make calls for animal liberation retain greater relevancy to those not immediately concerned with such issues via its totalist perspective. Participatory organizing and economics offers new means for animal liberation groups to organize. Efforts could be undertaken towards establishing participatory institutional arrangements within animal and farming industries, as a means to enhance animal and worker conditions and industry standards. Rather than seeking the bottom line, a participatory work place has the ability to greatly alter the practices of modern slaughter houses merely by removing the capitalist logic and pursuit of profit that has led to killing (dis)assembly lines. The arguments presented by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel regarding the reduction of environmental damage in a Participatory Economy due to goods reflecting their real social and environmental value is also true for animal based goods and meat. The removal of capitalist markets, which currently distribute and determine the value of animals and animal derived products, and the creation of a participatory economy, could be the key means in liberating animals, along with workers and the environment, from the current systems of oppression. In a Parecon the damaging effects on the environment, and possibly the suffering and killing of animals themselves, would be factored into the valuations given to animal based products. Such realistic valuing of animal goods would severely raise the costs of continued production and potentially limit or eliminate demand for such animal based products. Such a system however is still open to anthropocentric favour and distinctions, leaving the potential for animal suffering and conditions to be under valued or not considered. While it offers great hope for animal advocacy, the underlying logic that has striped animals of any agency is not just created by the current economic system but is entrenched in all aspects of society and human practice. This pervasiveness of animal suffering and anthropocentricism needs to be confronted directly as part of our efforts and vision.
Complimentary Holism and feminist perspectives can provide critical voices to curb and question some of the larger animal liberation organizations tendency to rely on sex and celebrity to sell their message. In the hands of animal liberation movements a totalist or holistic analysis has the potential to become further disseminated to new audiences, put into practice and passionately advocated for. The work of Carol J. Adams [xi] for example, highlight ways a totalist understanding can be expanded upon, examining the co-defining and accommodating oppressions of women and animals. For example, animal abuse is often a sign of domestic abuse; women are often referred to in animalistic terms or even seen or treated like cuts of meat- rack, rump etc.
More broadly, there are implicit acknowledgments of the true nature of our practices. Even recently, former US president Jimmy Carter likened Israel's treatment of Palestinians as inhumane and ‘animal like'. In regards to humans such practices and actions are rightly condemned. The inhumanity needed to demean and kill is acknowledged as a moral and social failure. Applied to animals on a daily basis such actions are seen as normal or even justified as part of some natural order. Part of what makes the actions in Palestine and elsewhere inhumane is that the suffering and trauma experienced by human beings. What also makes such actions inhumane is the ability to inflict such suffering and death in the first place. The mindset that has been coerced after years of training, reinforced by cultural and social propaganda and practice, enables one to kill or destroy. Are such actions defined merely by whom they are applied to? By who suffers from them? Are they not also defined by the actions themselves, by the capability to enact such violence regardless of victim and consequence, and institutions that create such a capability? This is not an argument about moral equivalency but about extending moral consideration. The loss of a human being in violent and avoidable ways is very important and tragic, but that does not exclude a concern about the systems and logic of domination and killing that apply to animals. The two are one in the same. To eliminate inhuman practices we must identify them in all aspects our society and social practices. To seek change in some parts of our society and not others is logically and morally inconsistent.
More immediately, the pressures of inevitable environmental change, the dwindling of natural resources such as water and fertile land, will force dramatic changes on how the global North, eats and farms, particularly animals [xii]. As the environmental reality will inevitably change our diets, now is the time for progressives to have vision to take up these issues now, preparing for such changes by incorporating into our existing analysis and vision animal liberation concerns. This enables progressive movements to direct and take the lead regarding such changes in keeping with progressive aims- short and long term. Too often progressives are left reacting, fighting to correct the narrative, to create a foothold on an issue. Animal Liberation is one area that has connections to previous libratory struggles in both a moral and ethical sense; it incorporates a potential element of anti-capitalist critique and direct action, and is tactically and strategically important paradigmatically and environmentally. Such potentiality could be lost if Animal Liberation/Advocacy issues are continued to be dismissed or seen as a low priority. It leaves the potential of a vacuum, an absence of well defined alternatives, when change is forced upon our practices and habits, a vacuum easily filled by industry and regressive forces with the power and ability to set the narrative, filter it through the market and frame the changes and either set about delaying them or profiting from them, or both. Either way the Left will be left to play catch up ruing its missed opportunities.
By ignoring the interconnections existing around issues of animal liberation, we do ourselves a disservice strategically while deliberately marginalizing the suffering of tens of billions of beings.
After all our experiences of struggle, we should have the vision and courage to engage with new struggles for liberation, for in the end we all share common aims. Adding insult to injury is that animals rarely have the means to truly voice or rebel against these systems. That billions of animals die to meet our eating desires and little else is all the more horrific due to the scale of the senselessness. Profit and power are the real motivators behind such industries that seek to create, sustain and expand our voracious desire for animal flesh.
To enlarge and strengthen our efforts we need to acknowledge the relevancy and legitimacy in one another's analysis by placing such analysis at the core of our existing efforts to create closer ties. At the moment the two movements seem to exist in relative separation. Many animal liberation/rights organizations while having great activist and advocacy networks and fundraising ability fail to relate their work to wider progressive efforts and analysis in meaningful ways. More conscious and concerted interactions by both the Left and Animal Liberation would be beneficial to both and lead to a mutually beneficial society.
A program of integrating our efforts may involve solidarity campaigns to accompany efforts to identify and expand the shared elements of critique and analysis. Such solidarity work would provide a means to create practical ties, along with information and skills sharing and would enhance and further the process of developing a more complementary analysis.
In the long term, especially in a post-capitalist society, the inclusion of animal considerations, like the necessity of environmental considerations could be factored into the decision making processes of institutions and people's interactions with them and each other. One possible means for this is for groups or individuals to act as representatives of such concerns. This might manifest by having an environmental-impact consultant or animal rights consultant acting on behalf of non-human interests, unable to directly participate, within a consumer council, production council, or a neighbourhood polity. In keeping with participatory practices, such concerns would be taken into account and given proportional weight depending on how much a certain decision may affect an ecosystem or animal welfare. In this manner, animals and the environment have direct advocates working within a participatory council system.
An alternative at a broader institutional level may be the availability of detailed impact statements, from the local to global, that councils are encouraged to consult so decisions are properly informed. Within the economic realm, such information would be needed to help determine the true value/costs of goods as stated earlier regarding animals within a parecon. Such information however may be economically focused in nature. Similar reports and statements would need to be available, though perhaps qualitatively different, for polity decisions. Rather than having direct advocates, animals and environmental interests and concerns would be represented as part of the broader information exchange necessary to informing participatory processes. Through the iterative/legislative process such considerations could be weighed, thus allowing the treatment and position of animals a more meaningful presence within society.
A combination or variety of both approaches may be employed to best ensure that non-human interests are given meaningful voice.
I hope that the Left's ability to create and pursue alternative visions for society enables us with the tools to also move past the limitations, and potential set-backs, of anthropocentrism regarding animals and the environment more broadly. There are many issues here that we can start discussing, especially the development of participatory means and analysis to address issues of animal liberation. We here at Z, and the Left generally, have recognized other forms of oppressions even when misunderstood, unpopular or denied by those in power. Now its time to recognize the rest [xiii].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] In the USA alone- http://www.goveg.com/theissues.asp
[ii] http://www.goveg.com/workerRights.asp
[iii] http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
[iv] http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862001000100018&script=sci_arttext
[v] http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3696
[ii] http://www.goveg.com/workerRights.asp
[iii] http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
[iv] http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862001000100018&script=sci_arttext
[v] http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3696
[vi] http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0812.htm
[vii] http://www.goveg.com/healthConcerns.asp
[viii] http://www.goveg.com/environment.asp
[vii] http://www.goveg.com/healthConcerns.asp
[viii] http://www.goveg.com/environment.asp
[ix] http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862001000100018&script=sci_arttext
[x] http://www.cowsarecool.com/environment.asp
[xi] Carol J. Adams, "The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory" http://books.google.com.au/books?id=AwrwRKNavtAC&dq=Carol+J+Adams&printsec=frontcover&source=an&hl=en&ei=RHtASpD1GofU7AOmk4z4Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4
[x] http://www.cowsarecool.com/environment.asp
[xi] Carol J. Adams, "The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory" http://books.google.com.au/books?id=AwrwRKNavtAC&dq=Carol+J+Adams&printsec=frontcover&source=an&hl=en&ei=RHtASpD1GofU7AOmk4z4Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4
[xiii] Propagandhi, "Nailing Descartes to the Wall (Liquid) Meat is Still Murder" from Less Talk, More Rock
ZNet Articles
Blog Posts
structure vs. policy
By Weglowski, Edward at Sep 29, 2009 00:00 AM
animal rights are integral part of humanity - humanity is not a part of existing policies - participatory society is the best bet to achieve humanity that lead to animal rights - and talking policy without ways to obtain participatory society first is, with respect, a soft ball
Reply this comment
Re: structure vs. policy
By George, Justin at Sep 29, 2009 21:50 PM
Edward,
The essay was written as part of the 'Re-Imagining Society' project. I hope you have had the chance to explore the site. It has two aims- to argue for increased connections between animal liberation/rights efforts and Leftist efforts and two demonstrate the manner in which such animal liberation concerns can be addressed in a participatory society.
The point of the essay is refine our vision so we can incorporate animal liberation perspectives into our strategies and tactices for how we want to obtain a participatory society. As Michael Albert has written ( I paraphrase) 'we need to know where we want to go before we know the best way to get there.'
So while developing ways to obtain participatory society is of vital importance, having an idea and conception of what that society looks like is just as important. Part of the same process.
My perspective is that obtaining and creating a participatory society will be a mulitfaceted and diverse process, with different situations and environments requiring different approaches. Such approaches should be determined in a participatory manner- via self-management, proportional decision making. So while discussions of wider vision and strategy might be fruitful, I don't see how it's constructive to detail a plan of achieving a participatory society that might not be appropriate for many/most situations around the world.
If you're interested in strategy then there are numerous articles as part of the project that consider various approaches- anarcho-syndicalist, parrallel/mutualist approaches, even democratic centralist perspectives. I consider the project, and most of the work here on Z, a collaborative effort ( I assume we all share similar aims and values in some form or another) and my essay is just a contribution to this as I don't have all the answers, and don't expect anyone else to either. It's thru our collective efforts that we will imagine and create a better society.
So rather than providing a critique with little content, perhaps make a contribution yourself and write on how you see is the best way to obtain a participatory society, or better yet, how to obtain a participatory society while ensuring diverse interests and considerations (including those of non-humans and the environment) are respected and heard within that transformation process. Otherwise your claims of 'soft ball' might be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Reply this comment
Re: structure vs. policy
By McGehee, Michael at Sep 30, 2009 07:17 AM
edward,
but dont you think policy acheivements like animal rights can help clear a path to other achivements that take us in the direction towards a participatory society?
i think justin would agree that any achievement or reform that advances the scope of human freedom or brings accountability to issues that affect our humanity are important steps towards our destination.
animal liberation/rights are intricately connected to issues like human health, the environment, food scarcity and expanded consciousness (a society that has ethical concerns about how it treats themselves and other species is making progress).
so its difficult to understand why you would say we shouldnt discuss policy initaitiives and instead talk about how to get where we are going cuz winning reforms and new policies are being seen by folks like justin (and myself) as part of the way of building a participatory society.
Reply this comment
Forced merger between animal liberation and leftist struggle
By Corbett, Jean-Francois at Jun 29, 2009 05:18 AM
I'll have to disagree with the choir. Justin's article contains many logical fallacies, in a forced attempt at linking animal liberation to leftist struggle.
A type of argument that resurfaces constantly throughout this article is that since the meat (/fur/leather/animal exploitation) industry does many actions that leftists struggle against (labour repression, environmental destruction) and the same industry also carries out affronts to animals, then affronts to animals should be part of what leftists struggle against. This is identical in structure to the following faulty argument:
"Fascists carried out genocide and many other very evil things. Fascists made the trains run on time and repressed labour. Therefore, it's evil to make trains run on time and to repress labour." Well, some of the conclusions *happen* to be right by pure chance, but the argument is really *not* valid, and I wouldn't particularly like to be served with it. Why not explain to me straight out why labour repression is bad, instead of sidestepping the issue and trying to gain my sympathy based on my disliking fascism?
This is not a critique of animal rights. I do believe, without having given the topic much more than cursory thought, that legitimate parallels can be drawn at a certain level between some of the values underlying animal liberation and those underlying leftist struggle. Admittedly, I'm not yet convinced, like Justin is, that leftist struggle and animal liberation are more profoundly linked than that.
But either way, one should take care not to resort to fallacious arguments in order to make one's point that the one equates with the other. While doing so may persuade part of your audience (illegitimately), others will cry demagoguery.
Reply this comment
Re: Forced merger between animal liberation and leftist struggle
By George, Justin at Jun 29, 2009 17:32 PM
Beside the fact that I outline both direct reasons for animal liberation along with how it relates to leftist efforts, the intent is not to merely present animal liberation arguments but to demonstrate the need for expanding our vision (hence this essay is part of the Re-Imagining Society Project) on these issues. You fail to actually dispute the actual claims and don't actually present a counter argument. Such reactions as yours a perhaps more reactionary than actually considered, perhaps reflective of the Left's general reaction to animal liberation issues. I highlight below:
Let’s cast our minds back to the 60s and 70s and rigid progressive and radical movements were confronted by other analyses outside of a mere economic focus (I’ve edited Jean-Francois response to highlight his inability to actually respond to any of my points in the actual article)
I'll have to disagree with the choir. Justin's article contains many logical fallacies, in a forced attempt at linking women’s liberation to leftist struggle.
A type of argument that resurfaces constantly throughout this article is that since the sex(sex trafficking, prostitution, pornography) industry does many actions that leftists struggle against (exploitation, oppression) and the same industry also carries out affronts to women, then affronts to women should be part of what leftists struggle against. This is identical in structure to the following faulty argument:
"Fascists carried out genocide and many other very evil things. Fascists made the trains run on time and repressed labour. Therefore, it's evil to make trains run on time and to repress labour." Well, some of the conclusions *happen* to be right by pure chance, but the argument is really *not* valid, and I wouldn't particularly like to be served with it. Why not explain to me straight out why labour repression is bad, instead of sidestepping the issue and trying to gain my sympathy based on my disliking fascism?
This is not a critique of women’s rights. I do believe, without having given the topic much more than cursory thought, that legitimate parallels can be drawn at a certain level between some of the values underlying women’s liberation and those underlying leftist struggle. Admittedly, I'm not yet convinced, like Justin is, that leftist struggle and women's liberation are more profoundly linked than that.
But either way, one should take care not to resort to fallacious arguments in order to make one's point that the one equates with the other. While doing so may persuade part of your audience (illegitimately), others will cry demagoguery.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Forced merger between animal liberation and leftist stru
By Corbett, Jean-Francois at Jun 30, 2009 09:04 AM
Justin, please consider the following. In constructing your analogy to women's struggle (indeed a good way to test my argument), I believe you actually edited away my principal point. I'll participate in your excercise but revert two words to what I had written before:
A type of argument that resurfaces constantly throughout this article is that since the sex(sex trafficking, prostitution, pornography) industry does many actions that leftists struggle against (labour repression, environmental destruction) and the same industry also carries out affronts to women, then affronts to women should be part of what leftists struggle against. [...]
Let us assume that I am a labour- and environment-conscious leftist in the 60s-70s, unaware of women's liberation. If someone comes and tells me that the left should fight for women's liberation because the sex industry carries out labour repression and (say) environmental desctruction (due to e.g. chemicals to produce porn films), I would be like, "huh?" This would be a rather shallow and calculated way of trying to gain my sympathy -- which would in turn remain quite shallow. I think that these types of argument should be treated as side points at best -- and not highlighted, as they are in your article. Because they're just not addressing the crux of the matter.
What the person should have done is to try to convince me that oppression as it applies to women in the context of the sex industry is indeed the same type of relationship as oppression in e.g. a labour context. This (applied to animal liberation) is indeed addressed in part of your article, but the cheaper tactic outline above does a disservice to this main point, and should be treated with suspicion in any context, in my opinion.
> highlight his inability to actually respond to any of my points in the actual article
My post was not an attempt to respond to the substance (the "points") of your article -- but rather to argue that the manner in which the points are made is dubious.
Also, it would be grand if you would avoid labelling the reactions of people who don't necessarily agree with you completely right from the start as "reactionary" or other derogatory terms, or saying that they are "unable" to respond to your arguments. Please just stick to what was actually written.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Forced merger between animal liberation and leftist
By George, Justin at Jun 30, 2009 21:21 PM
Jean-Francois,
Your reply neither addresses my article or my first response that demonstrated that your comment was reactionary rather than considered. Your comment was unsupported and incorrect.
As I mentioned in my reply, which you failed to respond to, was that I was drawing a range of connections to why anthropocentric behaviour, or non-human oppression, should be factored into progressive analysis. I specifically use the totalist framework of Complementary Holism. This analysis examines the interconnection of oppressive structures and hierarchies. That different realms of society accommodate and co-define each other regarding oppressive institutions and behaviour. So the arguments you claim are ‘shallow and calculated’ actually attempt to outline that our oppression of animals and the environment co-define and are accommodated in society’s other institutions and vice-versa.
You use the examples of labour repression and environmental destruction. My arguments are analogous to demonstrating that women usually suffer from greater labour repression than men (gendered division of labour, less opportunity, less earnings, more casual positions, sexual harassment, sex trafficking, less representation in unions etc) or hold a position in society more likely to be affected by the consequences of environmental destruction, just as those in other spheres of society who suffer from oppression and exploitation. The connections between class, race, gender, politics and as I argue animals and the environment, are not casual but a direct consequence of the co-defining and accommodating nature of society’s institutions. Thus the oppression of women has a class, race, political, and a gender dimension and this will manifest in, as well as shape, each of these spheres and vice-versa.
If I had used arguments such as your example then I agree it would be tenuous (“chemicals to produce porn films?”). However the examples I used throughout my article are to demonstrate that the oppression of animals is predicated and reliant on oppressive and exploitative features of other elements of society, a key feature the analysis I employ, and the crux of my argument- animal issues aren’t just animal issues. I also relate all points back to how they directly impact on animals, along with providing references to various sites that detail animal liberation arguments. My focus and examples specifically examine the social and physical damage done by our use of animals.
Your comment was reactionary, for not only does it ignore the sections of the argument that solely deal with animal liberation concerns, it also ignores the fundamental argument of the article-the need to consciously incorporate animal liberation perspectives into our analysis and efforts, not an exposition of animal liberation arguments. My arguments and examples all directly relate to animal-based industries and society’s use of animals. They don’t extrapolate one circumstance as determining or justifying an unrelated circumstance. Nor do you provide an example to support your comment. Without citing examples and without engaging the content then your comment serves no other purpose but as a reactionary stance. So your claim of illegitimate or logically false arguments on my behalf just doesn’t hold weight.
So please, actually it would be grand, that unless you have anything to contribute that will inform a meaningful discussion of the content and its implications then please stop wasting time and space in self-defence of an unsubstantiated comment that you’ve made, there for everyone to consider, that hasn’t furthered interesting, meaningful or useful interaction.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Forced merger between animal liberation and left
By Corbett, Jean-Francois at Jul 01, 2009 02:17 AM
Well, even though I believe it is legitimate to address the form of an argument (just as its deeper substance), if only because the arguer may or may not then choose to refine it for the next time she encounters similar criticism, I'll agree to "stop wasting time and space" because I don't see any reason to subject myself to your hostile comments.
Nice way to put an end to a debate. Good luck convincing a broader audience if this is your reaction to criticism and head-scratching.
For the record, I kind of see the point of your counter-argument in your last post, though I would certainly have been more receptive to it (and perhaps willing to discuss further) if you just had kept to it and avoided mixing it with a healthy dose of labelling me as an incapable, reactionary jerk in thinly veiled terms.
Geez, man.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forced merger between animal liberation and
By George, Justin at Jul 01, 2009 21:22 PM
Your comments have been neither substantiated nor constructive criticisms nor attempts at discussion.
Your original comment was a dismissal not a critical discussion of the article, with the use of terms such as- “fallacious arguments”, “illegitimately”, “demagoguery” after which you employed comments such as “shallow and calculated” so why would I do you the courtesy of engaging with you.
I’m more than happy to discuss meaningful criticisms and comments, but as I’ve stated several times you failed to provide anything meaningful or considered for a discussion to occur.
I’m glad to hear that you’ve given up on discussion as that was evident to me from the very beginning.
As for your claim of veiled “labelling me as an incapable, reactionary jerk” they’re your words not mine, but hey if the shoe fits...
Reply this comment
Berry and Ozeki
By Small, Brian at Jun 28, 2009 22:06 PM
"Imagine the impact if people made a simple choice of changing what they eat for dinner alone."
Wendell Berry's thinking might contribute to the discussion. "Eating is an agricultural Act"
Ruth L. Ozeki's My Year of Meats (another review)gets you right in there with the slaughtered cows and damaged bodies of industrial meat. I don't know how animal liberation thinking will work as I help farmers cull the deer and wild boars that (suffering from the degraded ecosystems of forests missing wolves and featuring too many cedar plantations) ruin their fields. After a timber harvest or landslide (also probably a result of cedar plantations inability to handle water like a diverse, healthy forest) new trees can't establish a new forest as deer nip them at the bud(s). I might go back to trying to be a vegetarian again when the wolves come back to Japan.
How about Joel Salatin's ecological approach to farming? He seems to think you need animals to manage the land....
Eating local, 'cruelty free' meat might have more 'liberatory' effects than a lot of the soy products, I had never thought of it until Mother Jones got the ADM subsidy giants to propound the benefits of socialism versus markets in the Midwest. Someone brought this up with Chomsky and he assumed 'Andreas' was talking to other business people, not a magazine... I've been curious about The White Dog Cafe as a model for this kind of eating and progressive activism ever since I read of it in David Suzuki's Good News(which also mentions Joel Salatin..) It doesn't sound like a Parecon but...
Reply this comment
Re: Animal Liberation and Participatory Society
By Sernatinger, Andrew at Jun 27, 2009 20:04 PM
wow, my syntax got all fucked up on posting...
Reply this comment
Animal liberation, obstacles and opportunities
By Sernatinger, Andrew at Jun 27, 2009 20:03 PM
I'm not generally too active on ZNet, but I wanted to say first I really appreciated your take on putting together animal liberation and left vision.
I want to bring a few thoughts to your article, with respect. I would pose them as open questions first and then bring a little bit of what I know to them.
1) Why have animal liberation activists been separate from social and economic justice movements?
2) What is animal liberation? What does it mean, what is the desired relationship with animals and what might that look like?
3) What are the barriers to animal liberation? (Social, economic, cultural institutions)
4) Where do we go?
Again, I present these with the best intentions.
Animal activists have a lot of shit to get over. The enormous animal advocacy organizations are completely subsumed in the non-profit industrial complex, and at this point their interests aren’t in helping animals but in bringing in money for their paid staff. The worst of these organizations is PeTA, which regularly uses sexist advertising campaigns, dehumanizes the homeless, and makes culturally insensitive (read: racist) arguments—keep in mind that while sometimes human-animal analogies make sense, its about how people who have been animalized as a dehumanization tactic take that in that makes this an important issue.
On top of that, you have a militant wing that largely embraces anarcho-primitivist or deep ecology ideology (which is all kinds of trouble) and often states that it is unconcerned about human issues because animals have it worse. Take for instance the activists who targeted the Makah tribe when they resumed their whale hunt instead of taking on large capital fisheries, US military sonar projects, toxic water dumping that kills animals, etc. The understanding of power and solidarity is so far off base its like they’re purposely trying to piss people off. This brief run down I think explains why so much of the left is skeptical (if not hostile) towards animal liberation as a concept; when you have so many people doing fucked up shit in the name of “compassion” how can you take the idea seriously?
For the second question, your article is a little unclear about what you mean by animal liberation and the social and environmental consequences you remind us of overshadow it. Is there a core problem, or is it just that animal use and treatment at this historical juncture is so appalling to our senses? A lot of animal liberation activists get caught in this trap of showing all of the very specific cases about how bad things are, but we shouldn’t let the egregious abuses distract us from the even “benign” animal use.
The rule of thumb is generally, would I feel comfortable if it were a human in this situation? In the end, it comes down to the fact that because animals can’t give us their consent to use them we shouldn’t. (And we can generally say that sentience is the governing characteristic here. Got a central nervous system? No? We're probably cool.)
There’s a lot of work by folks in the “abolitionist” animal rights camp who are pulling in the numbers to show that the reforms proposed for animal industries are actually more profitable and efficient, and in turn increase animal exploitation. (See writings by Francione and Torres.)
With that in mind, how do we find a “good” relationship with animals? Its important that we don’t reproduce the nature-culture divide that bourgeois society likes to have out there. Animal liberation shouldn’t look like half the world is a fucking zoo where humans aren’t allowed to go. Its hard to imagine a world where animals are fully respected because its so contrary to everything we’re used to, but like every revolution we should consider the immense geographic changes that are going to ensue. This is probably the most difficult question, and its largely specific to animal rights people to think through. (I really don’t know what this could look like right now, but you're absolutely right in emphasizing that capitalism needs to go.)
In terms of what we do, I think that animal rights/liberation activists need to do our part to call out our own racism, hetero-patriarchy, and capitalist behavior. We have a lot of baggage to carry in repairing relationships and bringing this up as a serious issue that can act in solidarity with other movements, and we should be ready to purge elements from groups that do things that frankly remind me of eco-fascism. Animal people can reinforce the left in places that there is mutual struggle, but never forget that animal activists work on someone else’s behalf and it drastically changes the power relationship.
A quick glance at intersections: domestic violence and animal abuse; slaughter industry recruiting “illegal” workers to get the most value out of people in one of the most dangerous jobs in industry; food sovereignty as helping to loosen meat and dairy’s hold on the FDA and agricultural subsidies; animal industry pollution as part of community rights to space; overfishing and ocean ecology; public health and access to fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains; the list goes on.
Thanks again for the article. I really appreciate it and I hope that this kind of dialog really takes off for both sides.
Reply this comment
Re: Animal liberation, obstacles and opportunities
By George, Justin at Jul 02, 2009 00:07 AM
Hi, Andrew
Thanks for your comment and thoughts. I thought I’d also try and answer the questions you outlined, parts of my answers also respond to what you wrote:
1) Why have animal liberation activists been separate from social and economic justice movements?
From my perspective there are several factors involved. Firstly animal liberation emerged as a ‘single-issue’ movement. It emerged as part of the wave of ‘new’ social movements that had a greater focus on identity and lifestyle, rather than a more traditional political focus or critique. Much of the founding literature on animal liberation was focused on establishing the philosophical foundation and justification for animal rights, such as the key texts of Peter Singer or Tom Reagan. These looked at the moral implications without situating the critique within existing political and social critiques or outlining a political platform, or more specifically didn’t relate animal oppression back to the same structures responsible for human oppression. So the focus of movement actions was on the industries directly, the practices etc without a wider, guiding analysis. With regards to the Left, animal liberation I guess was/is deemed a lifestyle issue, a mere matter of choice, that is secondary to ‘hard’ political and economic analysis such as Marxism etc that relied on thorough, often ‘scientific’ reasoning and analysis with the focus on defining social institutions that it felt were critical to effecting mass social change and revolution. As animals fell outside of this analysis then they were deemed secondary or inconsequential. These reasons, as I argue, are also influenced by anthropocentric preferences that dismissed or undervalued animal perspectives.
These circumstances and different focuses I think have led to different strategies, tactics and institutions created to support them. Animal Liberation is concerned with mobilizing a broad base of people, trying to win wide popular sympathies to force change via market mechanisms, ie. Vegetarianism, boycotts, consumer buying power etc. I would guess that appearing ‘political’ with regards to a more extensive social and political analysis in a radical or progressive sense would be deemed alienating to target audiences and their ability to mobilize millions on certain issues. This lifestyle focus may have also influenced the emergence of attempts to monitor the minutia of animal products in consumer products and food. This isn’t problematic as such, and important for informing people and as a means of action, but it I think it often diverts or confuses the focus and purpose of animal liberation away from the need for wider social change as part of an animal liberation approach in favour of attempts at individual ‘purity’, so to speak, as an end in itself.
Radical efforts have had a similar goal to appeal to a broad base but not as successfully, for a variety of reasons. Whatever the monist analysis a radical group employed, it has meant that the interconnections of society’s oppressive features have been overlooked.
I see the situation as similar to incorporation of environmental issues over the last 10-15 years as the probability for mass ecological damage was accepted by radicals and leftists. But in many ways, environmental groups still don’t explicitly relate their analysis back to progressive analysis of the fundamental flaws of capitalism, the state etc. This is emerging slowly in some places however and I think it will also be a matter of time regarding the use of animals.
I think your critiques of PETA are correct in some ways but you need to be careful not to dismiss such groups completely. In many ways such sexism, cultural preferencing and use of celebrity reflect the systems and logic around them. This doesn’t excuse it but highlights the need for a melding of minds so to speak of animal liberation and progressive efforts. As I point out, I think Carol J. Adams and her work is a good starting point on some of those issues, especially regarding the continued sexism within their campaigns.
However, PETA has great ability to apply pressure to large corporations, raise awareness and force change. It organizes a range of actions, often confrontational but non-violent, and has been able to raise large amounts of revenue to support their efforts which are worldwide. Such visibility for animal issues is great and leads to great work. The Left can learn from the positive elements of the organization, its actions, how it has developed its ground base, while also critiquing its sexist imagery, its reliance on hierarchical structures, elements of its analysis etc. I would suggest the best way to do this though is not just via open attack but via exchanges and developing coalitions that would lead to a wider analysis, a change of internal structuring and so on.
As for those dark green and primitivist anarchist groups I think the problems reside much more with their broader strategy and aims then with any specific animal liberation perspective. The Left has always had its share of violent and short-sighted groups who felt that their actions represented some type of purity in comparison to those who recognize the long struggle ahead. That said many involved have a sense of urgency to act against, deeply-felt, injustice.
I would give progressives and radicals more credit in considering animal liberation arguments and perspectives on their own accounts rather than dismissing them just based on the actions of a small section of the community. You can question primitivist tactics and strategy, just as we might question elements of PETA’s approach, but that is something quite separate from the actual ideas or ideology of animal liberation.
2) What is animal liberation? What does it mean, what is the desired relationship with animals and what might that look like?
I left this broad as there are a variety of perspectives. In general it would mean the cessation of animals being merely at the use of humans. It would mean animal agency. In some ways it’s less about what type of liberation animals need to enjoy in comparison to what type of practices and paradigms must humans cease.
Some see that animal welfare is not enough- that bigger cages and chains aren’t the answer. I tend to agree. That said I think that reforms that improve animal conditions in the short term are welcome. If animal liberation is interconnected to other oppressions as I claim, then meaningful changes will only occur from society wide change. So while industries may profit from such changes if pressured, if an improvement, removal or end of animal use can be achieved then I support it. If this can be done within a vision and strategy for meaningful change, then it will be all the more effective.
I think that in the end animal liberation is a process, like all libratory undertakings. The oppressive structures identified in the article should rightfully be at the forefront of current animal liberation efforts. After such achievements, then a number of other factors come involved that make it hard to discern- environmental restrictions might ensure that animal use is severely limited if not completely limited. If a participatory economy and society are established then again true costs would virtually eliminate meat consumption and production.
Part of the thinking about a post-animal industry world is to recognize that most of the billions of animals killed are bred for that very purpose. If you remove the reasons for the industry to exist then there ceases to be a need for billions of animals to be bred etc. Most people I think recognize the futility of sport hunting too.
Environmentally sustainable farming and development practices, along with the possible means for animal concerns to be voiced within a participatory society, would ensure that loss of habitats, extinction and other human created threats would be severely limited compared to current practices. The existence of wildlife reserves and national parks indicates that we already recognize the need to retain ‘untouched’ areas around the world, and I would see no difference in a participatory society.
The most difficult aspect could potentially be indigenous practices, but considering these usually are based on ecological harmony, aren’t industrialized, often seasonal and in limited numbers then I don’t think it’s necessarily a conflict. However I think the processes of self-management and proportional decision making might help determine some/if any of the more problematic issues.
As for animal culls and other ‘pest’ responses, again within a participatory society I think in part these practices would be part of society wide efforts to undo the damage done by capitalism and rampant consumerism and industrialization. If ‘pests’ are actually threatening natural ecosystems and wildlife then humane measures to limit such threats should be undertaken. This might be via sterilization of the ‘pest’ species rather than culling, allowing breeding cycles to end. If ‘pests’ threaten human farming practices then I think its needs to be more clearly determined whether it’s actually humans’ encroaching on existing ecosystems or not. Again the measures I outline in the article for potential participatory ways of considering such issues provide the best way to consider differing interests in these examples.
I think the key issue is the acknowledgement and respect for animal agency. This will ensure just and equitable conditions and treatment along with the institutional features I outlined in the article.
3) What are the barriers to animal liberation? (Social, economic, cultural institutions)
I think I outlined the interconnections of animal liberation and other human oppressions so such an analysis would see that the oppressions we struggle against already on the Left would act as barriers to animal liberation. I would add to these anthropocentrism, the creation of hierarchies based on whether one is human or not. Liberation efforts must fight against such thinking if animal liberation is to succeed. The relative success of green movements in changing attitudes and understandings has helped with this a great deal. Human’s natural capacity for compassion and empathy I think can also continue expand our horizons.
Just as progressive groups and institutions still are confronted with issues of sexism, gender imbalance, racism, class, so to animal liberation groups. Widening understandings and analysis will aid in creating animal liberation groups working to combat these tendencies within and without.
4) Where do we go?
I think this is covered in the article.
Reply this comment
Yes, an excellent article
By Isaacs, Joel at Jun 26, 2009 13:57 PM
Your article moved me from ok to YES on this issue. Very helpful to see it in its larger context.
I also remember reading a quantitaive estimate of the aggregate cost of eating "polluted dead animal flesh", as I like to call it sometimes. If we eliminated the government subsidies to the corporations that produce the feed for the animals, and then to the corporations that produce, slaughter, and sell them, and the subsidised prices for the water used (and polluted), then the TRUE COST of meat would be something like
$15 to $20 US per pound! And I believe this does not even include the effect on global warming (18% of green house gasses), nor the huge medical costs resulting from illness, disease, and decreased health.
Reply this comment
Re: Yes, an excellent article
By George, Justin at Jun 27, 2009 07:48 AM
Thanks for your comment Joel, it's amazing of how much the cost of meat might be just from takng away subsidies let alone what its cost might be in a participatory economic system that would be more effective in including those other costs you mention into the valuation of meat and animal products.
Imagine the impact if people made a simple choice of changing what they eat for dinner alone. It doesn't require the invention of a new technology or industry. Such choices alone can make a dramatic impact along with what I propose in the article.
Reply this comment
An Excellent Article
By Andrews, John at Jun 26, 2009 04:08 AM
Justin
Thank you for a most excellent piece of original writing. I hope it is widely read.
On a similar theme, I found the following article by Kathy Freston on AlterNet:
http://www.alternet.org/story/140643/eating_meat_is_not_natural/
Best wishes
John Andrews
London, 26th June 2009
Reply this comment
Re: An Excellent Article
By George, Justin at Jun 27, 2009 07:26 AM
Thanks for the great link and comments John!
Reply this comment