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

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.