Anti-Oppression and Animal Rights
Jan 18th
How is anti-oppression different from animal rights? During the discussion of Steven’s post On Suffering and “Unnecessary Harm”, chernavsky wrote:
As far as I can tell, the philosophy promoted on this site is entirely compatible with the views of Gary Francione — and I’m actually surprised that he’s not mentioned anywhere. Here’s an excerpt from a lecture he gave:
“The foundational premise of the abolitionist perspective is veganism. As far as I’m concerned, veganism is the single most important form of social activism that anybody can engage in. And it’s not a lifestyle thing. It has to do with a commitment to non-violence, and it has to do with a commitment to the respect for persons, whether they are human persons or non-human persons.”
http://www.gary-francione.com/francione-rochester-lecture.html
I think there is an important distinction. Since this diverges somewhat from Steven’s original topic and because this may be of general interest, I thought I’d respond in this new thread. These comments are, for the most part, not specific to Francione’s formulation and also apply to the difference between anti-oppression and animal welfare.
An understanding of power (and the resulting privilege), which I think is central to the anti-oppression view of veganism, is something I have not seen in animal rights (or animal welfare) formulations. Stephen noted this as well. I know for myself I’ve had difficulty writing about power, so perhaps Francione’s view seems similar because we haven’t explained this point clearly enough.
My experience is that recognizing power comes naturally to oppressed groups. In the realm of confronting racism, people of color very often speak directly about power and privilege. I don’t think this is an accident. When one is in the oppressed group, I think it’s obvious that power imbalance is a huge problem. For those in the role of oppressor (as I am, among other ways, as a male), it may be more difficult to recognize: because I am in the power position, I don’t receive any push-back when exercising that power. Because privilege is so often invisible to the oppressor, if I don’t explicitly think in terms of power and privilege, I very likely will remain unaware of the true grip of sexism over my thoughts and actions and therefore be unable to disengage myself from participating in and perpetuating that system.
Similarly, when confronting speciesism, I am in the role of oppressor as a human animal with human animal privilege that is often invisible to me. By thinking directly in terms of power and privilege, I can start to disentangle myself from the sway of speciesist oppression, which necessarily also means working to end the broader systems supporting that oppression.
The anti-oppression view of veganism encompases both animal and human animal oppression. Power and privilege provide a common basis for understanding each of these oppressions. For many people, including myself, experience with multiple forms of oppression reveals patterns of interaction and behavior, all centered around power difference and privilege, common to all forms of oppression. For myself, it is difficult to speak in detail about any form of oppression without referring to power.
As a practical matter, I’m not sure how the abolition of animal use can be effected without addressing the issue of our power over animals. I imagine one might be able to say property status (a la Francione) is a way of exercising power over another, but that seems a step removed to me and therefore obscuring what seems to me to be the main point.
New video available: “You Can Help Stop This”
about 1 month ago - 1 comment
L.O.V.E.’s new video and pamphlet documenting speciesist oppression, “You Can Help Stop This,” is now available at YouCanHelpStopThis.com. Video subtitles are available in Chinese, Dutch, English, and Greek, with more coming soon (please contact us if you’d like to contribute another); pamphlet translations are coming soon. The video can be watched on Youtube and Vimeo, [...]
Political Correctness, Political Expediency, and Veganism
about 7 months ago - 4 comments
This is a guest post from Ida. Ida blogs regularly at The Vegan Ideal, a site that “works to cultivate a process by which theory, learning and skills based on veganism as the principle of non-exploitation are put into practice.”
While L.O.V.E. takes an anti-oppression approach based on the vegan ideal of nonexploitation, there are many [...]
Giving meaning to veganism
about 10 months ago - 6 comments
Vegetarians often have an ambivalent relationship with the animal welfare corporation PETA. In the past, I had reservations about that corporation (e.g., the “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign), yet continued to distribute their literature. And when I did, I had to ignore that unsettling feeling of unwholesomeness, justifying my actions to myself in the name [...]
On not mistaking social service for social change
about 10 months ago - 4 comments
Ida’s recent post at The Vegan Ideal, “The Absurdity of ‘Triage’ and the Need for Social Change” recalled for me Paul Kivel’s excellent essay “Social service or social change?” in The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex. A version of the essay is available online. In this excerpt (this portion is [...]
Holistic veganism
about 10 months ago - 22 comments
As a vegan, I’m interested in more than patterns of consumption. I’m interested in dissolving speciesist attitudes, spreading an anti-oppression worldview, & ensuring respect for all. I oppose human oppression as much as nonhuman oppression. I value honesty, respect, & community. I value discussions about respectful communication, discussions about the confinement of any species, & [...]
Sustainable animal agriculture and ethical vegetarianism
about 1 year ago - No comments
The sustainable dairy, egg and meat trend presents an interesting moment for animal advocates, as it brings to the fore the limitations of the anti-suffering, anti-cruelty rhetoric of animal welfare organizations. Read any vegetarian starter kit or eat-less-meat booklet from one of these groups and you’ll find they are treatises against factory farming (animals suffer [...]
The factors of oppression
about 1 year ago - 3 comments
In the first chapter of Animal Rights/Human Rights, David Nibert presents a model of oppression I have found helpful to work with. For me, it offers a broader context in which to make sense of my experiences. I encourage you to consider this model and test if it resonates with your own experiences of oppression.
According [...]
New information or new perspective?
about 1 year ago - 9 comments
Lately I’ve been reviewing slaughterhouse investigations and other footage in order to compile an anti-oppression, anti-speciesist video clip for online activism. Much of the footage I’ve reviewed has come from animal welfare organizations, and most of it has included narration from those groups. In reviewing these videos, I’ve noticed a big difference between the approach [...]
Just a bunch of normals
about 1 year ago - 4 comments
I recently ran across the following on a blog by a well-known vegetarian author promoting a vegetarian diet book:
Rip Esselstyn of Engine 2 Diet fame just sent me this. It’s a six minute video from an Engine 2 potluck. No freaks anywhere. Just a bunch of normals enthusiastically showing off their recipes, telling us their [...]
Effectiveness and Striking at the Root
about 1 year ago - 3 comments
First, a disclaimer: I think it’s important to remember that effectiveness is only one part of what makes a form of activism viable. We could, for example, analyze whether or not it’s “effective” to bomb the homes of vivisectionists to create change. If we did, I would argue it’s probably not effective; others may argue [...]
about 1 year ago
Great post. Thank you. In this and to some extent the prior post, you eloquently address concepts from standpoint theory without labeling it as much. I think that standpoint theory and other feminist perspectives have much to offer the theory and praxis of animal protection/rights/liberation. I’ve suggested some books that have been useful to me on these subjects in a blog post here: http://readinganimals.com/telling-animals-stories/
Thanks again for the great post.
D
about 1 year ago
What I find really important about veganism as anti-oppression is that it connects so directly with the work others have done and have been doing in analyzing various forms of human oppression. So, yes! let’s continue to share insights from various anti-oppression struggles so we can continue to learn from each other.
about 1 year ago
As someone who’s only been critically self-examining his own privilege for a while now (it took several years of being vegan before realizing that I had rejected *human* privilege, and this was only after realizing that I needed to check my white privilege, then my male privilege, etc.), I am sensitive to what you’re writing here, Victor, and this angle (focusing on privilege and power) is one important reason I was interested in seeing L.O.V.E. launch, because I agree that it is under-discussed in the “movement”.
So, yeah, when Francione says that we have to abolish the property status of animals, the idea I believe is that we cannot do this as long as we *regard* animals property. I think that examining the roots of human domination, over each other and over other beings, is critical to undermining the property status of animals, a status that existed well before law existed to *define* them as property. It seems to me that power and privilege, or a sense of entitlement, are indeed all wrapped up in this. Once we let go of our power over others, to reject our entitlements (to reject our speciesism), *then* we can treat others justly and avoid causing them harm, because only then will see them as the equals we need to see them as in order to treat them with the respect they deserve.
Man, I hope that makes sense. I had a tightly-planned afternoon that all fell apart so that I could try to respond to these two posts, so I was rushing the whole time (even then I was distracted several times). They’re conversations worth having!
about 1 year ago
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your comments and your willingness to own your privilege, Eric. I agree with your thoughts that power and privilege are bound up in our commodification of animals and I was very interested to read your take on it, since, as far as I know, the words “power” and “privilege” aren’t often used in relation to Francione’s ideas. I think talking about these concepts directly is important because doing so clarifies the structure enabling the exploitation and can strip away the euphemisms human animals use to rationalize our oppression of animals.
Yes, I’d like for there to be more visible discussions of power, privilege and oppression! I have been feeling hopeful on this point because I’ve started encountering more references to these ideas on our local mailing list, in personal conversations, as well as in various places on the web (in addition to the continued, consistent efforts at The Vegan Ideal and VoC). I hope by bringing up these ideas in our conversations, emails, blogs, and other interactions, we can help foster discussions about these issues with a wider audience, so they receive the exposure and attention they merit.
about 1 year ago
This was a thought-provoking blog post. I’ve spent a few days pondering it.
I think that whatever difference exists between Gary Francione’s views and the editorial views of the L.O.V.E. website is one of emphasis: there is no deep-seated ideological gulf. Francione is a lawyer by training and a professor at a law school, so it’s natural that much of his scholarly work has to do with the legal status of animals as property. But property status is not his exclusive focus. He often writes (and speaks) about patriarchy, sexism, heterosexism, speciesism, and other forms of discrimination & oppression. At the end of this comment, I’ll post examples from an interview he gave and from his most-recent book.
If I seem like I’m defending him, it’s only because I think that he’s done some very valuable, useful work. For the past twenty years or more, he’s been like a lone voice in the wilderness when he’s advocated veganism as a moral baseline for the animal movement. He has argued eloquently — on both theoretical and empirical grounds — that welfare-type reforms serve only to further enslave animals. From what I know about his views and the views of the L.O.V.E group, I do not see any serious conflict.
As I said earlier, I’m including some excerpts from his work. I know they’re rather long, but I do think they’re worth reading to get a sense of how Gary Francione approaches the subject of veganism. I think he’d be OK with the anti-oppression view that was outlined in Victor’s blog post.
Here is an excerpt from an interview that Gary Francione did on the “Vegan Freaks” podcast:
“And you can’t say that the issue of animal oppression can be looked at in any sensible away apart from its connection to other marginalized groups in the society… I was invited one year to come and talk [at a conference] about the relationship of speciesism to sexism, racism and homophobia… And I gave my talk about how speciesism, homophobia, racism were all inter-related. And I had a room full of blank faces looking at me saying, “Look we don’t really want to get into these issues at all; our issue is the animal issue”… I remember specifically Cleveland Amery [saying], “We don’t have a position on sexism any more than we have a position on the rights of Palestinians”. And I said, “No, no I disagree, I think we have a position on the rights of women. I also think we have a position on the rights of Palestinians. That is, they all have rights, none of them should be commodified – and that as long as we’re commodifying humans in any sense we’re going to have the problem of commodifying non-humans”.
Full transcript: http://www.gary-francione.com/vf_jan_30_2007.pdf
Here is a fairly long excerpt from page 17 of his latest book, “Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation”:
Just as the decision to become a vegan is the most important incremental change that advocates can make on a personal level, creative vegan education and campaigning are the most important activist incremental activities on a social level. Again, promoting veganism on this level is not merely a matter of influencing consumer choices; rather, the focus is on promoting a vision of justice for nonhumans as well as humans, many of whom are condemned to starvation because of the inefficient use of resources involved in animal agriculture. It involves recognizing that our unjustified exploitation of nonhumans is related to our oppression of other humans and to the discrimination that manifests itself as racism, sexism, heterosexism, and other forms of discrimination. Indeed, the concern about justice for nonhumans makes sense only as part of a progressive social and political view that values human rights and opposes human exploitation.
If we ever hope to shift the paradigm away from the speciesist hierarchy that currently informs our thinking about nonhumans, we must develop a political and social movement in favor of abolishing animal use, with veganism, as both a logical and a moral matter, being the clear baseline of that movement. Many new welfarists, however, reject veganism as a moral baseline. They maintain that it is more “practical” to support welfarist reform and to promote animal uses that are more “humane.” But this approach reinforces the prevailing view that animal use is morally acceptable if treatment is “humane,” and it makes veganism appear as a radical or extreme response to animal exploitation, which is counterproductive to the goal of abolishing animal use.
I have long argued, and continue to believe, that an afternoon spent distributing literature on veganism at a crowded place or giving a lecture on veganism at a local community college is a much better use of time, as a matter of both moral theory and practical strategy, than spending that time working on a campaign to get battery hens some extra space or to require that vivisectors treat animals used in laboratories more “humanely.”
Amazon page about his book:
http://www.amazon.com/Animals-Persons-Essays-Abolition-Exploitation/dp/0231139500
–
Alex Chernavsky
about 1 year ago
Thank you for your comment, Alex. The difference between Francione’s view and the anti-oppression view feels similar to me to the difference between diversity and anti-racism.
When facing issues of racism, white people often talk about “diversity,” which deflects attention from the power and privilege white people have over people of color. I don’t know any PoC, including myself, who are interested in conversations about diversity.* I don’t think diversity is incompatible per se with anti-racism (though the mere mention of the word makes me shudder with foreboding), but I think it misses the mark. In practice, my experience is that diversity is used by white people to serve their own needs by providing a way to “address” racism while avoiding the uncomfortable work of examining and doing something about their own power and privilege. And this avoidance of confronting white privilege is itself an act of privilege.
In a similar way, I don’t think talking about property status is incompatible per se with anti-speciesist struggle, but it seems to miss the mark. And, by not addressing the issue of power, it seems to serve our need as human animals to avoid looking at our own supremacy over non-humans. And, again, I think it’s a mark of human privilege to be able to ignore our own power and privilege over others.
I appreciate Francione’s willingness to be vocal about his objection to the status quo. (btw, I think Friends of Animals has also done so for a long time.) I also appreciate his consideration of the connection between sexism, racism, and heterosexism with speciesism. But I also am leery of any position concerning our relationship with animals that doesn’t explicitly consider human supremacy.
* A friend’s conversation with a well-meaning white individual:
White Person: Let’s celebrate diversity!
Person of Color: What do we do once once the party’s over?
about 1 year ago
It’s not clear to me why “power” or “dominance” are inherently morally problematic. This needs to be spelled out. It seems to me they’re only problematic insofar as they’re used to harm others (Note: construe ‘harm’ broadly here, beyond mere pain and suffering).
The reason to focus on property status and animal use is that there’s no non-extraordinary way to use animals without harming them, that is, without taking their interests seriously. When we treat animals as mere property, we are not taking their interests as seriously as we ought (i.e., we are not applying the principle of equal consideration).
about 1 year ago
The focus on “power” seems strange to me because it’s not something we can undo. We can’t relinquish the ability to oppress, dominate or harm others (human nor nonhuman), we can merely choose to act in different ways. Recognizing positions of power is certainly an important thing to do, but more important morally is how we behave with respect to others. This is where Francione’s work is focused and where the “power” view falls apart.
about 1 year ago
This comment highlights the importance of a focus on power. Examining power necessarily brings us down the path of learning about the structure of oppression. I think this, in turn, leads us to understand speciesist oppression as more than just a matter of our personal choices and actions, that it includes the broader forces that enable, legitimize and perpetuate it. Just as racist oppression is not simply a matter of individual attitudes, but rather is an institutional phenomenon, so too is speciesist oppression.
Re the previous comment:
In a sense, it’s true that power by itself is not a problem in that it’s one among several necessary factors of oppression, the one that enables it to take place. Psychological or economic gain provides the motivation and ideological control (such as property status) provides the rationalization. I plan to go into more detail about this in another post in the near future.
However, I think to say that power and dominance are not problematic is to ignore the ways in which they operate in reality. To quote Frederick Douglass (in the same work Francione cites in the title of his book “Rain Without Thunder”), “Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.” As I had mentioned earlier, this experience of power is one that oppressed groups talk about all the time because there is no way of avoiding it when one is not in the power position. So long as there is a power imbalance, the one with power can at any time choose to use that power, and so I don’t think true liberation can occur without addressing this issue.
If you’re interested, here are three readings from The Vegan Ideal addressing the concerns from these two comments. It might help to read a different presentation:
Veganism, Privilege and Liberation
Speciesism: It’s Only Human
Veganism as a Theory of Anti-Oppression
about 1 year ago
Thanks for your response Viktor. I’m still unclear why the focus of the analysis is on “power.” You agree that it’s not inherently problematic for there to be power imbalances. But then you go on to say, “So long as there is a power imbalance, the one with power can at any time choose to use that power, and so I don’t think true liberation can occur without addressing this issue.”
I’m unclear how the latter follow from the former and, moreover, what “addressing this issue” would entail. It’s essentially a truism that there will be power imbalances between individuals (human and nonhuman) forever and ever. What is there to “address” here? It’s a matter of fact.
This is where I don’t understand Steven’s criticism of Gary Francione. Gary focuses on how we ought to act (what ethics is really about). Steven, on the other hand, says this isn’t quite right and what we ought to do is focus on the matter of fact that there are certain power imbalances that exist. Why? This much still has not been explained. Ok, so we notice them, then what?
Where you talk about “oppression” you’re talking about /actions/ and abuses of power. Power and dominance are not the problems themselves, and the focus on them as the root of injustice is misguided. The root can only be in how we act since that’s ultimately what’s up for analysis when we talk about morality.
about 1 year ago
When you write that power and dominance are not the problems, I think you’re correct … from the perspective of the one with power. To the one without power, the continual threat of abuse of power means that power imbalance itself is a problem (in addition to the actual exercise of power).
From a larger perspective, because the dominant position is the default, even if the one with power does not consciously act on their power, they may act to perpetuate oppression. This is unconscious privilege.
It’s also easy for the one with power to assert that power imbalance is an immutable fact*. But one of the privileges of being in the power position is to imagine there being no alternative even while acting to maintain the monopoly on power and reaping the benefits from being in the privileged position.
Those with power never want to give up power. Focusing on our personal actions is easier and less threatening to the one with power than relinquishing control.
As a starting point, I believe it’s important for us to reflect on how power and privilege operate in our own experience.
It’s true we only have control over our own actions. But if we don’t understand power, I don’t think we will have the perspective to understand how to act in a way that does not perpetuate oppression.
* It would have been more accurate to have said “large power imbalance” both here and earlier.
about 1 year ago
Have you considered the work of Joan Dunayer?
She has written two books (“Animal Equality” and “Speciesism”) that deconstruct the ideology of speciesism and tear at the roots of the system of human supremacy. Dunayer advocates moral and legal equality for all sentient beings.
Here’s an excerpt from “Animal Equality” (http://www.lanternbooks.com/detail.html?id=0-9706475-5-7):
—–
Envision nonhuman emancipation. With hunting, fishing, and trapping outlawed, free-living nonhumans adjust to their ecosystems in ways guided by natural selection; human interference no longer harms individuals, populations, or environments. Humans stop “producing” dogs to be merchandise, mice to be tools, and turkeys to be flesh. A ban on “selective breeding” ends centuries of inflicting deformity and genetic disease. The number of “domesticated” nonhumans rapidly declines. All captive nonhumans are liberated from exploitation and cruel confinement. Those incurably suffering from deformity, injury, or illness are euthanized; all others receive any needed veterinary care. Liberated non-”domesticated” nonhumans are set free if they can thrive without human assistance (after any necessary rehabilitation) and if appropriate habitat exists. If not, they’re permanently cared for at sanctuaries. As much as possible, these sanctuaries provide natural, fulfilling environments. Hens liberated from egg factories, cats liberated from “shelters,” and other homeless “domesticated” nonhumans are fostered at sanctuaries and private homes until adopted. A screening process helps to safeguard each adoptee’s well-being. Under the law, nonhumans in human care have essentially the same rights as young children.
—–
about 1 year ago
To further illustrate Joan Dunayer’s rights theory in practice, here is her position for legal rights, excerpted from her book “Speciesism” on page 148-149 (http://www.lanternbooks.com/detail.html?id=0970647565):
—–
It should be illegal for any human to
- buy, sell, breed, exhibit, imprison, deprive, or torture any nonhuman being;
- use any nonhuman being in an experiment not undertaken for that individual’s own benefit;
- compel any nonhuman being to labor, perform, compete, or provide any service to humans;
- intentionally kill any nonhuman being except to end their apparently incurable suffering; prevent them from parasitizing, injuring, or killing someone; or prevent someone’s imminent starvation;
- intentionally injure any nonhuman being except in someone’s defense;
- interfere with normal predation or other natural activities among free-living nonhumans;
- take, intentionally damage, or intentionally destroy anything that nonhumans produce or create within their natural habitats;
- intentionally destroy or dramatically alter any “undeveloped” habitat.
The rationale for legal rights is to minimize injustice and compensate its victims. Ideally, moral and legal rights would fully correspond. All sentient beings have moral rights. They need corresponding legal rights.
—–
about 1 year ago
It’s funny you should mention Dunayer, Brandon, because I happened to have a copy of Speciesism sitting on my desk. Your comment motivated me to read it last night.
At a high level, I think her view is limited by the lack of recognition of the institutional nature of speciesist oppression. So, for example, following the quote you cite about legal rights for non-human animals, she writes, “When the law becomes nonspeciesist, all sentient beings will be … liberated from society and other human interference.” I think this is a naive view and I think that’s how she can write, without irony (this is admittedly out of context), “Misogyny doesn’t exonerate a rapist. Racism doesn’t exonerate a white who kills a black.” (Speciesism, p. 30)
I also disagree with much of her analysis. For example, from pages 15-30 she writes about the various characteristics used to justify limiting rights to humans. She goes into detail about how each of these (having a soul, being able to enter contracts, and so forth) is flawed. In the cases of humans having “a greater capacity to suffer,” “more intelligence” and “superior morality,” she goes into painstaking detail about why non-humans fit, and in some cases exceed humans, in these criteria. From the perspective of power, this section would be very short: “Humans, having the privilege of power, dictate what criteria are necessary to grant others rights. Being in the privileged position, we naturally choose criteria that include us and exclude others.” One might cite examples from human history, such as limiting the vote to white, male landowners, where those who hold power create structures to perpetuate it.
I similarly disagree with the discussion in the “New-Speciesist Law” chapter, which has a similar structure. At least here she comes closer to recognizing the privilege in the situation by mentioning the word bias. Alas, bias remains in the realm of personal preference and doesn’t include the relational aspect of privilege.
The quote you cited from “Animal Equality” is very interesting. She proposes “euthanizing” (an odd word choice, given her vociferous criticism of others for using euphemisms) “[t]hose incurably suffering from deformity.” This is ableist thinking, presuming the only life worth living is the “normal” one free of deformity. As well, it is speciesist, putting humans in the privileged position of deciding whether a non-human’s life is worth living. Worth according to whom?
Your thoughts?
about 1 year ago
[At a high level, I think her view is limited by the lack of recognition of the institutional nature of speciesist oppression. So, for example, following the quote you cite about legal rights for non-human animals, she writes, “When the law becomes nonspeciesist, all sentient beings will be … liberated from society and other human interference.” I think this is a naive view and I think that’s how she can write, without irony (this is admittedly out of context), “Misogyny doesn’t exonerate a rapist. Racism doesn’t exonerate a white who kills a black.” (Speciesism, p. 30)]
Dunayer’s conception of speciesism is different from traditional theorists, though. She explicitly rejects the notion that speciesism is only a mere prejudice. As she says on page 5 of “Speciesism”:
—–
In sum, speciesism is both an attitude and a form of oppression. Viewing humans as superior to other animals, speciesists weigh human interests more heavily than equally vital or more-vital nonhuman interests. It’s speciesist to exclude /any/ nonhuman being from full and equal moral consideration for /any/ reason.
—–
[I also disagree with much of her analysis. For example, from pages 15-30 she writes about the various characteristics used to justify limiting rights to humans. She goes into detail about how each of these (having a soul, being able to enter contracts, and so forth) is flawed. In the cases of humans having “a greater capacity to suffer,” “more intelligence” and “superior morality,” she goes into painstaking detail about why non-humans fit, and in some cases exceed humans, in these criteria. From the perspective of power, this section would be very short: “Humans, having the privilege of power, dictate what criteria are necessary to grant others rights. Being in the privileged position, we naturally choose criteria that include us and exclude others.” One might cite examples from human history, such as limiting the vote to white, male landowners, where those who hold power create structures to perpetuate it.]
She could have devoted more space to discuss power and how it is used to oppress other animals, but the fact that it is discussed at all is important, considering how it is neglected by most animal ethics theorists. I assume she devoted more space to the other standard objections to granting nonhuman beings equal consideration because they are so commonly heard.
[I similarly disagree with the discussion in the “New-Speciesist Law” chapter, which has a similar structure. At least here she comes closer to recognizing the privilege in the situation by mentioning the word bias. Alas, bias remains in the realm of personal preference and doesn’t include the relational aspect of privilege.]
On page 3 of “Speciesism” she mentions privilege:
Like Singer, philosopher Tom Regan defines speciesism as giving “privileged moral status” to all humans and no nonhumans. Again, it’s also speciesist to morally privilege all humans and only some nonhumans. To me, the speciesism of privileging mammals and birds is as obvious as the racism of privileging Europeans and Asians or the sexism of privileging men and exceptionally masculine women.
[The quote you cited from “Animal Equality” is very interesting. She proposes “euthanizing” (an odd word choice, given her vociferous criticism of others for using euphemisms) “[t]hose incurably suffering from deformity.” This is ableist thinking, presuming the only life worth living is the “normal” one free of deformity. As well, it is speciesist, putting humans in the privileged position of deciding whether a non-human’s life is worth living. Worth according to whom?]
Dunayer is not disguising needless killing in euphemistic terms, as when humans say they “euthanize” healthy dogs and cats in “shelters.” She is speaking of true euthanasia, whereby we would do the same for a human who was in the same position of the nonhuman being. Literally, she means incurable, untreatable, unending suffering. Besides, this only applies to the interim stage before complete emancipation, whereby humans care for nonhuman beings who are unable to survive without human assistance. In a nonspeciesist world, humans would no longer breed and keep other animals as “pets.”
about 1 year ago
Yes, Dunayer does use the words “power,” “privilege” and “oppression” at times, but it’s not clear to me from reading the book that she uses these words other than in a colloquial way in passing (as opposed to understanding the concepts as they relate to speciesist oppression). Nearly the entire book (with a few exceptions) is devoid of discussion about power and oppression. By contrast, she does devote a significant number of pages to describing the poor treatment of animals.
I think there may have been a misunderstanding about what I wrote regarding p. 15-30. She didn’t make that statement about power; it was my own take on how to argue that entire section from an anti-oppression view. In fact, by not objecting to the criteria and instead trying to show how animals equal or exceed human animals on those same grounds, she validates the human animal privilege in choosing those criteria as standards. I think this is a big problem and shows a basic lack of understanding of power.
I do want to acknowledge that Dunayer does write directly about power and privilege on p. 110: “Making freedom contingent on whiteness maintained white supremacy; it kept whites in the position of judge and superior being.” There are a scant few other places in the book where she does address the concepts of power and privilege and they are the exception rather than the rule. In most other instances, she misses these ideas entirely.
This is also tempered by the use of privilege in parts of the book. For example, writing about battery cage reforms: “If I were in a Nazi concentration camp and someone on the outside asked me, ‘Do you want me to work for better living conditions, more-humane deaths in the gas chamber, or the liberation of all concentration camps?’ I’d answer, ‘Liberation.’ … I’d regard any focus on better living conditions or more-’humane’ deaths as immoral.” (p. 62) This is a typical expression of privilege. Not in any danger, she makes a statement from the POV of the oppressed that supports her view and to generalize her personal opinion in saying it is the moral choice.
As I mentioned, the euthanasia example is another example of privilege, where we get to make choices on behalf of another without establishing consent. We get to value another’s life as not worth living if we deem them to be enduring incurable, untreatable, unending suffering. Her words “incurably suffering from deformity” may present a more obvious example. It presupposes that deformity makes life not worth living. This kind of ableist thinking, often from the able-bodied, devalues the lives of those who have imperfect bodies.
Unless you’re referring to a human animal without a DNR who is unable to communicate, a significant difference between euthanasia with human animals and animals is that in the former we can establish clear consent and in the latter I do not know how we can.
about 1 year ago
There seem to be very many formulations of animal rights. The list of legal rights Brandon cited is interesting to me because it reads like an exhaustive enumeration of rights. More often, it seems to me that rights seem to be created from nowhere — Dunayer’s Speciesism, for example, refers to the following moral rights in various places: “right to life” (pp. 61, 77, 124); Francione’s view’s “right to freedom of movement” (p. 69); various views’ “right not to be property” (p. 124); Cavalieri’s view’s “right to be spared suffering” (p. 124); and “right to bodily integrity.” (p. 125) It feels somewhat arbitrary to me, especially statements like, “It’s wrong to vivisect humans because doing so causes them to suffer and die. It violates their rights.” (p. 53) Which rights, specifically?
I’m not saying any of these views are right or wrong. I think it’s fair to say that, among any group, there is heterogeneity of opinion. For example, I’ve read various interpretations of Francione’s view: some think of the right to not be property as a moral right, others as a legal right, still others as both. It doesn’t matter to me what the one true view of Francione’s is; I’m more interested in discussing what your view is, “even” if it’s your interpretation of another person’s view.
I’d feel more comfortable if, when discussing rights, authors such as Dunayer would at the outset explicitly enumerate the rights they are concerned with. From my perspective, it’s difficult to discuss these issues not knowing which rights we’re discussing.
about 1 year ago
Note: Francione believes the right not to be regarded as property is both a moral and legal right. The cases for the moral right and the corresponding legal right are spelled out clearly in his work. Anyone who thinks he’s advocating just the moral right or just the legal right ought to read his “Introduction to Animal Rights.”
about 1 year ago
Joan Dunayer advocates rights to life, liberty, and property (as both moral and legal rights) for all sentient beings. By “right to property,” she means only that nonhuman beings should be legally considered as owning what they produce (such as milk, eggs, honey, etc). Further, she argues that “property” should include the habitats that each individual needs, which would stop humans from destroying and polluting “undeveloped” land.
Gary Francione advocates the right not to be property as both moral and legal rights (as jasonk said) for all sentient beings. I’m not sure what other moral rights Francione advocates, but he rightfully regards veganism as morally obligatory.
Overall, I don’t thank any writer has all the answers. My main influences on animal ethics are Francione and Dunayer. I’m also influenced by the work of Tom Regan, Steven Best, and David Nibert. Everyone has something important to contribute.
about 1 year ago
Hi Victor,
See, to me, Francione’s approach is similar, and compatible, to the approach taken here at LOVE.
Does not a commitment to nonviolence, in the form of veganism, mean that one recognizes their own power and rejects exerting that power over other beings? In other words, isn’t promoting a commitment to nonviolence, with veganism as a “moral baseline”, directly addressing the issue of power imbalances? Does the dissimilarity you speak of lie solely in the issue that he doesn’t often (as far as I know) focus on the term “power”?
Regardless of his focus on the property status of other animals, the core of his approach, a commitment to nonviolence, is very much compatible with LOVE’s mission, is it not?
Sorry if this has been addressed above and I just read over it. If there’s a particular reply you’ve already posted that deals with my question then feel free to just refer me to that.
Peace
about 1 year ago
Lui, my response to Alex’s comment addresses the points you brought up. Please feel free to leave another comment if you don’t find that response helpful.
Because power plays a central role in all forms of oppression, I think explicitly using the term “power”* and centering analysis around the concept of power are very important. In my experience, people of color in the US speaking about racist oppression almost always do this. I don’t think this is an accident and I think this is an important understanding.
* We were recently given feedback that some people are interested in definitions of terms like “power” as they are used on this website. I hope we have a chance to do that soon, since this may help clear up some confusion.
about 1 year ago
Thanks Victor.
I absolutley agree with you about the importance of addressing power and I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m minimizing that importance. That’s not my intention.
Still I feel that one of my questions went unanswered and I’d be interested in your response.
In the comment you just linked to you said, in reference to Francione’s work, “by not addressing the issue of power, it seems to serve our need as human animals to avoid looking at our own supremacy over non-humans. And, again, I think it’s a mark of human privilege to be able to ignore our own power and privilege over others.”
That brings me back to the question I asked above – Isn’t promoting a commitment to nonviolence, with veganism as a “moral baseline”, directly addressing the issue of power imbalances and not ignoring them? And also, do you feel that a commitment to nonviolence, to any being, to be the most important practical way (perhaps the only practical way) to address and reject human supremacy, power, and privilege? To me, that emphasis and commitment is definitely not ignoring those issues but directly addressing them and, in practical terms, rejecting and attempting to counteract them.
Your thoughts?
Thanks again!
about 1 year ago
Aiko and all,
I just listened to an AnimalVoices podcast about Igualdad Animal, an anti speciesist and abolitionist organization in Spain. This group is doing amazing work and rejects all welfare reforms for the same reason anti-oppression activists do; because other animals are not ours to use at all (period).
Many welfare and new welfarist organizations dismiss abolitionists and anti-oppression activists as having “no call to action” or having an “all or nothing” mentality that, according to them, always results in “nothing”.
This organization, Igualdad Animal, disproves that unfounded assertion.
They also make it clear on their website that veganism means rejecting exploitation. Good stuff.
Check it out if you’re interested -
http://www.animalvoices.ca/shows/sharon_nunez2
http://www.animalequality.net/
Peace