Posts tagged oppression
New video available: “You Can Help Stop This”
Aug 2nd
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, as well, and it can be downloaded from this page. An image for DVD burning will be available soon.
The core difference between “You Can Help Stop This” (YCHST) and other animal advocacy videos is that YCHST repeatedly emphasizes exploitation, whereas “Meet Your Meet,” Earthlings, and other videos focus on specific details of various industries. For this reason, “Meet Your Meat” is not a vegan video but an anti-factory-farming video. While Earthlings addresses many speciesist practices, it makes each argument separately: specific reasons to change our diet, specific reasons to boycott circuses, specific reasons to stop using leather. Comparatively, I think the message in YCHST is coherent, holistic, and clear. The first titled section directly addresses exploitation, the following sections all return to exploitation, and veganism is defined as a principle of non-exploitation. I think this clearly presents speciesism as a system of oppression, and I think it presents veganism as a coherent, effective response to speciesist oppression.
From the beginning of this project, I imagined like-minded vegans using this video in place of other activism clips that, while emotionally powerful, are limited in their presentation of a vegan perspective. If you believe in veganism as a principle of non-exploitation, not just a lifestyle that happens to solve various problems, I encourage you to view this video and share it with people you know, to spread it online and show it in your communities. I feel very satisfied upon completing this video and sharing it with you all; I think it expresses my reasons for “being vegan” more clearly than I ever have before. Thank you very much.
Click here to watch the new video: www.YouCanHelpStopThis.com
Political Correctness, Political Expediency, and Veganism
Jan 10th
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 nonhuman animal activists who fear that as long as veganism takes into account the oppression of human animals, it will take away from opposing cruelty to nonhuman animals. The argument goes as follows: if we advocate against oppression as it targets human animals whilst advocating against oppression as it targets nonhuman animals, then people – having a finite amount of resources – will refuse to oppose the exploitation of nonhuman animals since it would include the “baggage” of being “packaged” with also opposing the exploitation of human animals, something, it is assumed, potential nonhuman animal activists are likely to be disinterested in.
One nonhuman animal activist who professed little interest in the exploitation of human animals or the Earth recently commented on L.O.V.E. saying that he is focusing exclusively “on living opposed to exploitation of the non-human [animal] species,” regardless of the effect it has on humans or the planet. The rationale for this single-mindedness was subsequently presented on another blog.
Such rationalization of ignoring the exploitation of human animals and the planet isn’t unique. In fact, even the use of metaphorical language like “baggage” and “package” to dismiss the issues concerning oppressed groups of humans or the destruction of the planet’s life-sustaining systems is the same language used for the same purpose as that in two separate mandates on how to effectively promoting “veganism.” Furthermore, those two advocacy directives represent the official policy and positions of two U.S. national nonhuman animal advocacy corporations.
Political Expediency
The argument for exclusively concerning ourselves with nonhuman animals rests on doing what is most politically expedient. Expediency is about attaining an end by emphasizing what is convenient and practical in terms of narrow nonhuman animal advocacy goals. And with this comes a strong willingness to ignore when something is oppressive and exploitative in ways outside of our area of concern.
Political expediency privileges those of us who benefit most from the existing social structure at the expense of those of us who are the targets of oppression. For instance, a White, male(-identified), able-bodied, cissexual, heterosexual, upper/middle-class, Christian, citizen can easily afford to be disinterested in how others are the targets of oppression. Yet the same is not true for those of us who are people of color, female(-identified) people, disabled people, trans people, queers, working-class/poor people, non-Christians, and/or a non-citizens who are currently the targets of that oppression.
As Royce notes in a post at Vegans of Color, framing vegan advocacy in this way leads to the erasure of those of us who can’t, don’t, or won’t fit ourselves into the neat little box of White, male(-identified), able-bodied, cissexual, heterosexual, upper/middle-class, Christian, citizen that is taken for granted as the “mainstream.” As such, the very acknowledgment of issues concerning people of color, female(-identified) people, disabled people, trans people, queers, working-class/poor people, non-Christians, and/or a non-citizens is seen as competing with vegan advocacy.
I find it hard to see how exactly such an advocacy framework actually liberates nonhuman animals – although, I do see how it obviously benefits the most privileged of humans. Of course when we focus exclusively on narrow nonhuman animal advocacy aims, the argument for expediency is persuasive simply because we aren’t concerned with how it affects others.
Basically, what we end up with is an unacknowledged endorsement of the continued exploitation of other humans and the planet’s systems. That is to say, we end up advocating for a political positions and policies that are strongly pro-exploitation and thus pro-oppression.
While claiming to be in defense of what is most efficacious, I believe these statements on advocacy can better be understood as a backlash (or counter response) to advocacy that seeks to be more inclusive and just overall. As such, advocacy based on political efficacy is a form of counter-advocacy. That is, it becomes less about promoting the liberation of nonhuman animals than a reactionary response to advocacy that seeks transformational social and political change.
Political Correctness
In many ways, political expediency is a reaction and rejection of political correctness. Correctness is concerned with exactly that which expediency is least concerned about – that is, what is exploitative and oppressive in any way.
Unfortunately, while it is a deeply positive concept, political correctness has been co-opted as part of a reactionary counter-advocacy against social transformation. Pundits like Rush Limbaugh sought to associate being “political correct” with something bad at the same time they coined terms like “feminazi” and “ecoterrorist.” The advocacy of policies and positions that discourage us from taking into account the oppression of other humans and the destruction of our planet fit within this larger pattern of conservative backlash.
I think a great distinction between political expediency and political correctness is offered in the Combahee River Collective’s “A Black Feminist Statement”:
In the practice of our politics we do not believe that the ends always justify the means. Many reactionary and destructive acts have been done in the name of achieving “correct” political goals. As feminists we do not want to mess over people in the name of politics. We believe in collective process.
While I don’t want to speak for the collective, I think political correctness is reflected in the work of L.O.V.E. As Jenna said in her response to comment mentioned above, “Personally, if I don’t have the capacity to be directly involved in the different anti-oppression struggles around the world, I at least strive to be respectful of them.”
While political expediency assumes addressing multiple forms of oppression would result in a competition of oppressions, politically correctness recognizes how expediency itself needlessly constructs oppressions as competing. Instead, political correctness involves an understanding of how addressing multiple forms of oppression is in reality complementary.
Just as political expediency isn’t exactly new, the same is true for political correctness. In fact, political correctness was present during the founding of the vegan movement in the mid-1940s. The following is from a statement of the movement’s founding members:
The Vegan Society seeks to abolish man’s dependence on animals, with its inevitable cruelty and slaughter, and to create instead a more reasonable and humane order of society. Whilst honouring the efforts of all who are striving to achieve the emancipation of man and of animals, The Vegan Society suggests that the results must remain limited so long as the exploitation in food and clothing production is ignored.
Obviously the originators of the vegan movement explicitly framed the emancipation of human and nonhuman animals as a complementary necessity – failure to account for and respect all anti-oppression struggles is understood as being limited and unacceptable. It’s in this spirit of political correctness – of respect for others’ oppression – that veganism was envisioned and to which political expediency becomes a form of counter-advocacy.
Giving meaning to veganism
Nov 7th
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 of “practical”ness: “but their stickers/brochures/DVDs are free and people seem to enjoy receiving them (especially the stickers!).” I was unwilling to give up something I wanted — having free materials to distribute — which I would have had to do if I had admitted to myself how much people are hurt by PETA’s campaigns.
This changed when I witnessed the hurtfulness of PETA’s racist “Animal Liberation” campaign firsthand. Directly seeing PETA’s cynical appropriation of a group’s experience of oppression and the tangible harm it did to our community dismantled the wall of self-deception I had fabricated in my mind to separate the “bad” things the corporation does from the purported “good.”
I could no longer ignore reality so I could keep getting what I wanted.
I was no longer willing to be associated with PETA and decided to stop distributing their materials. And when I did, I was freed from the justifications that had kept me from fully acknowledging, even to myself, the harm done to human animals by PETA. And I began to realize that, by distributing their literature, I was not only unwittingly fundraising for, but also tacitly endorsing a corporation that actively seeks out oppressive campaigns.
Fast forward a few years, and I was in a similar position with another animal welfare corporation that was actively unwilling to examine its own racist and sexist attitudes. I continued to distribute their literature, again in the name of expediency (“What else would I hand out if I stopped using these? Everybody says they’re the most effective pamphlets.”)
But finally I started thinking that I wouldn’t support or even be associated with a racist or sexist organization in any other part of my life, so why was I doing that here? Put in those terms, the decision to stop distributing the literature was easy and I was freed from the strain of trying to reconcile a fear of the unknown (“what would I do if I didn’t use this corporation’s lit?”) with not wanting to being complicit with the racism and sexism of the known.
Thinking back, I am embarrassed that it was so difficult for me to stop supporting these corporations, that something as frivolous as brightly colored stickers or the fear of the unknown was more important to me than the oppression of others. But then again, this is the trap of an oppressive system in action. Oppression is always something that can be ignored so long as it is somebody else who is being oppressed: that’s the very nature of privilege.
And so, having experienced the difficulty of disentangling myself from a dysfunctional relationship with animal welfare corporations perpetuating oppressive norms, I was encouraged to read the strong online response to PETA’s hurtful fat shaming campaign. Vegans publicly declared an intention to stop donating to PETA and mobilized to show their opposition.
These responses to a corporation unwilling to examine its role in perpetuating oppression are expressions of veganism. Veganism is revealed through our actions. When we refuse to give money to these corporations; refuse to link to their websites; renounce the perceived benefits of collaborating with them; publicly express our opposition to oppressive corporations and campaigns; and refuse to promote or otherwise support any of their campaigns and investigations until they take genuine action towards eradicating their institutionalized -isms, we give meaning and life to veganism.
Holistic veganism
Oct 20th
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, & discussions about racism in the vegan community. I want to help ensure that the vegan movement is not transphobic or sexist. I want a veganism that works for everyone—not just “the animals” & not just the middle & upper class. You might call this approach “holistic veganism”: to acknowledge all issues connected to veganism & speciesism.
Holistic veganism is a target of continual criticism from so-called “practical vegans.” Their argument is that language usage is unimportant—that worldviews are unimportant—that even human liberation movements are unimportant (!). Instead, they claim, only suffering & happiness matter. And they claim that, because “there is so much animal suffering,” we should ignore all that other stuff. This was, for a time, my understanding, too, but I’ve come to question a lot about this approach. Now I pose the question, Is “practical veganism” really practical?
My current belief is that, if our goal is liberation for everyone, holistic veganism is actually more ‘practical’ for at least two reasons. First, holistic veganism takes into account an understanding of the nature & structure of the oppression we wish to end—how it came to exist & how it is perpetuated today. Second, holistic veganism takes into account ideas & attitudes perceived to be intrinsically connected to veganism & the world we want to create.
The structure of oppression
The origin of oppression
When we understand the origin of oppression, I think we understand how to stop oppression at it’s earliest root. This is a reason to focus on exploitation. Nibert’s theory of oppression explains that exploitation is where nonhuman oppression begins. (We wouldn’t have the confinement, killing, or physical violence of animal agriculture if we didn’t first choose to exploit other animals for the products of the bodies. It all starts with exploiting them for their bodies.) Because of this, veganism is essentially a movement to end exploitation, & we talk about “the vegan ideal of nonexploitation. ”
On the other hand, “practical veganism” dismisses this understanding of cause & effect as “just a bunch of theories,” & they dismiss “exploitation” as an “abstract concept.” Because of this, “practical vegans” push aside non-exploitation ideals in order to make room for new, reduced-suffering versions of exploitation, which keep the cycle of oppression going in new forms.
The perpetuation of oppression
When we understand how oppression is perpetuated, I think we understand how to take away the support system & weaken the structure of oppression. This is motivation to consider ideas, attitudes, & language. Nibert’s theory of oppression explains that speciesist ideas justify nonhuman oppression, making it appear normal & inevitable. (“It’s O.K. to kill them; they’re just animals.”) So, as a vegan, I work on my own speciesism & I try to stop the spread of speciesism through language. I believe that, without speciesist atittudes as a justification, speciesist behavior couldn’t continue.
But “practical veganism” dismisses these concerns. “Practical veganism” asserts that attitudes don’t have to change—only patterns of consumption have to change. I think this understanding ignores that our attitudes determine our consumption & our behavior.
Ideas & attitudes connected to veganism
I recognize speciesism as one oppression among many, so I tend to discuss both speciesism specifically & oppression more broadly. I recognize the centrality of respect to anti-oppression work—so I promote respectful activism & respectful communication. I recognize veganism as a dedication to questioning everything—social norms, advocacy norms, & my own beliefs—so I invite debate, I continually question conventions, & I strive to learn from others’ criticisms. I recognize veganism as a movement against hierarchy, so I help form groups that avoid hierarchical structures (L.O.V.E. is a collective).
But again, “practical veganism” ignores these concerns, accepting & reinforcing any social norm consistent with “effectiveness”; working within hierarchical structures that distribute power unequally; & dismissing, even silencing, criticism within their groups.
In defense of holistic veganism
If our goal is liberation for all beings, I think a holistic understanding of veganism is helpful. It helps us to recognize the origins of that oppression, so we can stop it at the root. It helps us to recognize how that oppression is sustained, so we can stop feeding it. And it helps us to ensure that our groups and our outreach efforts are built on principles consistent with a vegan world.
Some of the common criticisms of holistic veganism arise from a genuine, core difference in values between vegans. Much of the criticism, however, seems to be simply misinformed. There are people who seem to honestly believe that, if we aren’t “practical vegans,” we must be arrogant, obsessive, uninformed vegans. My intention with this post has been to clarify some of the reasons—almost completely overlooked—why a holistic understanding of veganism may in fact be helpful, logical, effective.
The factors of oppression
Jul 30th
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 to this model (this is a slight modification of Nibert), the same three factors create the conditions for and perpetuate oppression of any sort:
| Function | Factor |
| Motivation | Psychological or material gain |
| Capability | Unequal power distribution |
| Justification | Ideological control (including speciesism and other isms) |
.
As an example, the use of non-human animals in zoos may be understood through this model: patrons of the zoo may be motivated by the desire for entertainment; humans, through our supremacy over non-humans, are able to force non-humans to be our captives; and we justify that imprisonment under the guise of conservation, education, and altruism (“they’re safer in zoos than in the wild”).
What I find particularly interesting about this model is that the conventional understanding of speciesism as the cause of speciesist oppression is turned around; speciesism is understood to be a natural product of speciesist oppression. This is important and worth repeating. According to this model, speciesist ideology, such as the idea that human animals are superior to non-human animals, does not cause speciesist oppression; instead, we create these ideas to justify our exploitation of non-humans for psychological or material gain.
This model considers oppression to be a systemic phenomenon, beyond mere individual prejudice. This focus on the system rather than the individual is one of the primary characteristics of the anti-oppression understanding. As well, these factors support each other, so once they are in place, they strengthen each other, creating a cycle that perpetuates oppression.
This model offers a simple structure to complement an experiential understanding of oppression and may be used to help bring clarity when analyzing situations. And so, when confronting the latest atrocity, this model can help us keep our bearings; remember that the individual is caught up in the system; and focus on the illness (the oppressive system) rather than the symptom (the individual act). By understanding the mechanics of the operation of oppression, we can better understand our own role in various systems of oppression and be more effective in our efforts to end them.
Just a bunch of normals
Apr 7th
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 success stories, and letting us glimpse an incredible diversity of healthful vegan food.
Before continuing, please take a moment to watch this promotional video for the diet book. Notice anything?
More >
Effectiveness and Striking at the Root
Feb 27th
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 that it is. However, there’s a bigger reason aside from “effectiveness” why I’d never bomb the home of a vivisectionist: It is an act of violence, and I’m against violence. So yes, I could say that “it’s not effective to use bombs,” but I give caution about focusing on effectiveness in that case, because I think there’s a bigger issue to consider.
Defining “effectiveness”
Arguments based on “effectiveness” arise frequently in discussions about activism and social change efforts. Countless decisions are based on what we judge to be the most effective or efficient plan of action. Many people shun their own intuition or ethical ideals because another path is assured to be more effective. Because this term is central to so many discussions about activism, I think it’s important to reflect on what it really means to us.
At this point, I see “effectiveness” as a measure of how far, how quickly, and how assuredly an action brings us toward our final goal. That is, if we want to accomplish something, I think our “effectiveness” means how quickly, directly, and assuredly we accomplish it. This can be difficult to estimate, to be sure, but this is what makes the most sense to me right now.
I’ve written that my “final goal” is a vegan world. I want to clarify that a vegan world, to me, is not just “the practical application of animal rights” or a something used “to reduce suffering” but instead the actual goal in itself. My goal is for the vegan ideal of non-exploitation—the philosophy and practice of anti-oppression—to be adopted on the large scale.
I intend to write several posts exploring ways to maximize effectiveness by this definition, but I want to propose one guiding principle right now.
Striking at the root
I care deeply about every instance of suffering, but I refuse to see that suffering as faceless and random—as if it’s by chance that human animals routinely enslave and kill nonhuman animals. I think when we notice suffering, we can ask, “What is the cause of this suffering?” and “What allows this suffering to continue happening?” Then we are looking for the root of the problem.
I think this strategy makes sense. We identify and work directly on the problem itself instead of working on the symptoms of the problem. This is where some amount of my criticism for anti-cruelty activism comes from. Anti-cruelty, anti-suffering activism seems so caught up in the “what” of nonhuman suffering that the “how” and “why” are ignored. But I think the “how” and “why”—the system of oppression that breeds the suffering—are the keys to understanding how we can effectively stop it from persisting. As L.O.V.E. member Victor pointed out: Making this criticism does not mean we are pro-suffering. We just see suffering as rooted in oppression. Without the oppression, the suffering doesn’t occur. If we get at the root (oppression), then the tree (suffering) falls.
We can get more specific yet, seeking the root causes of oppressive systems and asking how oppression is sustained and reproduced. Many of us at L.O.V.E. have been convinced by David Nibert’s model for a theory of oppression in Chapter 1 of Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation. Dani at The Vegan Ideal has summarized this theory of oppression and paired it with an analysis of veganism’s role as a theory of anti-oppression.
Acknowledging deeper roots
A deeper root arises when we acknowledge that speciesism is only one form of oppression among many. It can be enlightening to see speciesism in this context, especially for vegans who have already been involved in activism as a single-issue effort. For many, there’s a “click” and everything makes a lot more sense—veganism has so much more context than before.
Acknowledging the interconnection, we can seek out and support other liberation struggles, building bridges and forming coalitions, knowing that this only strengthens our ability to see, understand, and oppose oppression of all kinds—human and nonhuman. We can learn from other anti-oppression efforts about what works and what doesn’t. We can all strive to eliminate any of our beliefs that may be tinted with ableist, ageist, classist, heterosexist, racist, sexist, or transphobic attitudes. (And again, this is a situation where my disclaimer applies: We don’t just oppose sexism to make us more “effective” as vegans—although I think it does make us more effective as vegans. Sexism is worth opposing for its own reasons, before and after “effectiveness”!)
I’ll here note that I don’t think of true liberation as “expanding the circle” but abolishing the circle. I see the circle itself, the doctrine of respecting some and oppressing others, as a problem. This leads me to the deepest root I know to discuss: respect for all life and existence.
I see respect as the reason for my vegan stance and my anti-oppression stance. For example, Why am I opposed to exploitation? Because exploitation disrespects the individual, and I want to respect all life. So we can acknowledge this root by working to respect everyone of all species, races, genders, and classes—all struggles. And we can practice respectful activism and nonviolence, so as to respect the audience of our outreach (even those who mock us and work against us!).
Real, long-term change
“Striking at the root” is important to me because I think it’s the best (only?) way to achieve real, long-term change. I think it’s great to save any number of individuals from immediate threats of violence and exploitation, but what I really want is to solve the problems that create and sustain violence and exploitation in the world. What I really want is a world without violence and exploitation—a vegan world. So I judge my activism by how much closer it brings us to that world.
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.
Why animal commodities still sell
Dec 13th
I try my best to operate outside of the structures of oppression that are currently provided by our society, the economy being one of them. So much of our “American way of life” is built on foundations of — and perpetuated by — oppression. From the class of people who are kept in poverty so that the wealthy have someone to clean their houses and do their nails, to the sex trade that ensures women (and their bodies) a commodity status, to the slaughter of animals so their flesh and fur can be sold on the market, it all seems so heinous that I don’t feel good about participating in any of it — not to mention how preposterous it is to me that we have to pay for basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter. In that spirit, I am a vegan who grows and forages as much food as possible and is not often found in the faux-meat section of the grocery store. I encourage the growth of small barter economies (see also: the really, really free market; freecycle.org; and freegan.info) and any self-sustainability offered by your local climate (guerrilla gardening, anyone?).
My friend Drew recently passed along the following article about the oppressive qualities of our economic system, the trade in animal bodies as a thriving economy, and what the perpetuation of these systems means for oppressed animals and human animals. It’s a great read, and really got me thinking about how I can further step back from a consumeristic lifestyle. First step: not buying anyone a damn thing for the “holiday season,” because no one should be trampled and left for dead so that others can get a “good bargain” on things they don’t need.
Other suggested reading (get ‘em at your local library!):
- Global Woman by Barbara Ehrenreich
- Grassroots Warriors: Activist Mothering, Community Work, and the War on Poverty by Nancy Naples
- Toolbox for Sustainable City Living: A Do It Ourselves Guide by Stacy Pettigrew and Scott Kellogg
- Food Not Lawns: How to Turn Your Yard into a Garden And Your Neighborhood into a Community by H.C. Flores
—-
From Bull Market to Bear Market: Why Animal Commodities Still Sell
by John Sanbonmatsu
On Wall Street, the “Bull” market has turned into a “Bear” market—capitalist argot for a market in which sellers crowd out buyers and in which the value of publicly traded corporate stocks falls. Whether rising or falling, however, the capitalist market always treats other living animals the same way, which is to say as symbols of exchange and as living commodities to be bought, sold, traded, killed, and consumed.
In September, at the very moment when world markets were falling sharply throughout the world (the Dow Jones suffered its biggest one day point decline since the 9-11 attacks), at least one investment sector remained profitable to über-wealthy investors: speculation in dead animal bodies, gussied up as High Art. In an article entitled, “Bull Market for Hirst in Sotheby’s 2-Day Sale,” a New York Times reporter wrote:
It was as if Sotheby’s here was a little oasis far removed from the grim news of the financial world. In less than 24 hours, giant tanks of dead sharks, zebras and piglet submerged in formaldehyde; glass cabinets filled with medical supplies, cigarette butts or diamonds; paintings of everything from dots to skulls—233 works by the British artist Damien Hirst—were snapped up at a brisk clip by collectors from all around the world.
One of Hirst’s works, “Pigs Might Fly,” described by the Times as “a piglet with dove’s wings in a gold-plated case filled with formaldehyde,” brought in $872,139. Another , “The Broken Dream,” of “a foal’s head floating in formaldehyde with a knife beside it” brought in $907,480. In the end, the two-day sale of Hirst’s art netted $200 million—about half the Gross National Product of the country of East Timor (population: 1.1 million). Maybe a foal’s head floating in formaldehyde isn’t really good art—aestheticians will quarrel–but no one can say it isn’t good business.
Nonhuman animals in fact remain one of the few universal symbols of exchange under modern capitalism. Human beings buy and sell other animals like slaves, display them alive in zoos and aquariums for their pleasure, kill and stuff them for the local Natural History Museum, buy and sell them as “livestock,” or turn their corpses into art (Hirst’s ersatz animal sculptures are merely the latest iteration of nature morte, the “still [dead] life” tradition handed down to us by medieval and early modern European artists). Even today, as we enter the most profound crisis in world capitalism since the 1930s, Wall Street continues to do a brisk business in Pork Belly Futures. First offered on the Chicago Merchantile Exchange in 1961 (as a way for hog producers to hedge against price volatility in the market), Pork Belly Futures allows capitalists to place bets on the number of living beings who will be commodified and slaughtered in the future. That is not exactly right, however. So vast is the market that the minimum unit of exchange is in fact counted not in individual beings (who, after all, do not count), but as a quantity of flesh–“40,000 pounds of frozen pork bellies cut and trimmed.” Shylock may not get Bassanio’s pound of flesh, but today’s wealthy investors (Gentiles, Jews, Muslims, Atheists) get their’s by the ton.
What about those who lack the resources to gamble on the future options market, or who can’t cough up a cool mill for one of Hirst’s formaldehyde-drenched piglets ? Try starting up your own pig business. Global Swine Exchange thrives to “assist swine producers as well as other livestock producers throughout the world in finding breeding stock…with superior genetic potential for existing, expanding, or beginning operations.” Or start even smaller: many companies sell live baby pigs online for individuals to feed, nurture, and murder on their own, for $110 each. However, raising a pig can be daunting. So the growing vogue among young urban professionals and suburban soccer moms these days is to raise chickens rather than pigs at home. Baby chickens are even cheaper–$2.12 each per head. You can also accessorize. The Omlet Company sells an “eglu” for your backyard– “a truly innovative, practical and fun way of keeping chickens.” (“Collecting fresh eggs from hens in your backyard not only ensures you get fantastic tasting eggs but you also get a good feeling inside from knowing exactly where your food comes from.”) And when the chicken no longer produces good eggs, or if you’re just tired of being an urban farmhand, why, just kill your animal–by decapitating her. You can buy a DVD to learn how to do that too (www.chickenvideo.com).
Few animal rights activists appreciate how much capitalism continues to be one of the main driving force behind the extermination and enslavement of other sentient beings. While humans have been enslaving other animals at least since the Neolithic Era, some 12,000 years ago, only in the twentieth century did nonhuman beings get reduced to pure commodities—to abstract quantities to be viewed and treated as mere things. Capitalism reduces all value to the value of exchange—to what can be bought and sold for profit. The barbaric practices we see today throughout the animal slaughter industry –unwanted baby chicks being suffocated alive in large garbage bags, or fed alive into crushing machines; pigs and cows being skinned or boiled alive, the extermination of the great fishes of the free oceans (through the euphemistically named, “over-fishing”), minks and foxes being electrocuted and gassed by the millions for their fur, factory “fish farms,” where salmon, talapia, and other captive species live out their short lives in tiny watery hells filled with thousands of other fish, eating and breathing their own feces, and on and on—are the necessary complement to the capitalist mode of production. Just as capitalism forces a “race to the bottom” in human workers’ wages, it places irresistible pressures at every point of the animal production system to maximize the unfeeling exploitation of animal bodies. For the only way to meet demand for flesh in a mass consumer society is to cut corners, speed up production, hire unskilled labor, and lower production costs. As for the animals trapped in such a system, they become objects to be manipulated at will, even on the genetic level, as though they were not living, breathing, feeling, thinking beings. The atrocities we hear about in animal agriculture reveal the essence of capitalism as such, which is fascism.
As the world capitalist economy now convulses and enters its greatest crisis since the Great Depression, the stakes for the other animals with whom we share the planet could not be higher. In the short-term, a global economic depression will indirectly reduce some animal exploitation. Depression will hurt some markets for animal flesh, as government subsidies for agribusiness face new pressures, and as people cut back on expensive “meats.” Investment in genetic engineering of nonhuman animals, especially for pharmaceuticals, will persist, but there will be less and less money available for R&D. However, global depression will also hurt animals in a variety of ways. As the ranks of the unemployed swell, so too will the animal shelters, as families find that they must choose between eating and keeping their nonhuman companions. Meanwhile, in the Third World, increasingly desperate farmers, displaced urban workers, and landless peasants will turn more and more to “scorched earth” consumption practices simply to survive in the face of regional and local wars, mass starvation, and social dislocation. (Pity the poor Mountain Gorillas of the Congo, whose lives, like those of millions of black human Congolese, count for nothing these days.)
In the long-term, however, the greater danger facing the other animals on our earth is not the economic downturn, but eventual stabilization and recovery of the world capitalist order itself. If the Obama Administration and other governing corporate and political elites succeed in stabilizing capitalism, enabling it to live to see another day, then we can look forward to another hundred years of ecological ruin and mass enslavement and killing of billions of other sentient beings. So long as other animals are seen and treated as commodities for the ceaseless production of more and more profit for the few, their fates will be sealed. The rate of animal and plant species extinction will continue to accelerate, as global warming and habitat destruction deprive them of the basic means of life. Meanwhile, the living Hell that is the American system of animal agriculture—what can only be called the “concentration camp” model of flesh production—will continue to be exported to all four corners of the globe.
Hierarchy, privilege, and companion animals
Dec 9th
This question came into our COMMUNITY mailing list this morning, and we have moved it to the blog to open it up for discussion. Please post your comments and thoughts!
Hi there:
I’m Annie. I’m not sure how many people are registered to this list, since I think the website just went up. I met Miranda through Vegan Outreach and did some leafletting with her at Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo. I have so many questions about animal rights, since I’m pretty new to this. I hope it’s okay to use this email community for that. I thought it would be a great place for me to ask questions relating to AR and outreach (in particular, dealing with people’s questions). As it sounds like the creators of this website are well aware of, there are so many different viewpoints within this “one” movement, if you can even call it that (as with any social justice movement), and it gets pretty confusing sometimes. I know what I feel in my heart, but
there are a lot of ‘gray’ areas when it comes to reality and rationality. I suppose I’m always thinking about how I can justify my beliefs or actions because I assume people will always question them (and attack them, unfortunately) . . . it’s like a pre-emptive defense of my point of view.
So here are my questions:
1. I do believe very strongly in the idea that the relationship between humans and other-than-human animals is based on hierarchy, power differentials and oppression. I always ask myself, “How is it possible that we can treat animals in such unfathomably horrific ways?” and I often the only answer I can find is “because we can, because we can get away with it, and as history has shown, if we CAN exploit something, we WILL, for the most part.” Exploitation and abuse of power are a part of human history, but so are compassion and ethical evolution. So anyways, the point is that I get that – the oppression idea – and believe in full animal liberation. I’ve heard the argument that it is ‘unnatural’ for animals to be fully liberated
from their human ’superiors,’ and that like most other species, we too have always ‘used’ other species for our own needs. The first thing I think of is that humanity is in no way bound to the so-called ‘laws of
nature,’ or by our ancestral beginnings. We have also exploited and enslaved each other for thousands of years, and that is not ethically accepted. And IF we have the means to live compassionate, cruelty free lives, why wouldn’t we? Does anyone else have any input on this? I suppose I should read the book (“The Dreaded Comparison”). But I’m just curious what anyone has found in conversations about these issues with other activists and non-vegans alike.
2. So what about pets? I feel guilty about having my cat and dog (don’t worry, I know, I am their guardian not their owner, and if anyone owns anyone, they own me, as I’m excessively devoted to them). Anyways, I adopted my cat from a dumpster and my dog from a Navajo reservation in Arizona where the people (oppressed) do not have enough resources for themselves let alone the many stray, starving cats and dogs there). My dog has so many health problems, probably from the poor nutrition as a puppy and the genetic problems (there’s a lot of uranium and radiation there from the mining that has totally destroyed the environment and the ability of the Navajo people who remain out in the desert to sustain themselves), that sometimes I think he very likely would’ve died if he’d been left out there. I also am thinking about adopting another dog from the shelter, because if there’s anything that would make my dog happy, it would be to live with one of his own kind (I think, I guess I shouldn’t assume that, but it’s pretty obvious). I would NEVER ‘buy’ a dog from a breeder or puppy mill. I will always support spaying and neutering and adoption though, I think. We ‘enslaved’ and domesticated these animals, we can’t exactly just leave them to die in shelters or on the street (right?).
So I guess I’ve answered that question, but it still really confuses me and weighs on my conscience. I have complete control over them. My dog can’t do anything (like go out, or eat) unless I help him with it. I do the best I can to give him a great life and take him out all the time, but I still feel bad.
The other thing about pets, is, of course, the FOOD! At the animal rights conference in DC, there was a discussion about our ‘animal companions,’ and some people were saying that we animal rights people shouldn’t bare the burden of adopting all of society’s ‘throw-away’ animals because they eat meat. He was saying ‘why would you ever invite a carnivore or omnivore into your house and feed them meat?” Yeah, obviously, with people . . . I’m not gonna have family over and cook them up a ham, but when it comes to my pets (especially my cat), I just don’t know. They’re already in my life since long before I became vegan. I’ve heard that dogs can do pretty well on vegan diets, but I’ve heard that cats can get really sick without any meat. Does anyone have any input about that.
I’m sorry if this isn’t the intention of this email list. I just thought it would be cool to discuss some of the most ‘controversial’ issues and arguments that come up inside and outside of this movement.
I have SO much to learn.
Annie