The Animal Person Minute: On History Repeating Itself
Our photo today is of Emily Fokker Loder, our kitty who’s still alive and content despite her Feline Infectious Peritonitis (FIP). Next month is our seventh anniversary as a family, which also means it’s been seven years since the neurologist told us she’d probably die soon.
The topic for today is history. If you haven’t read For the Prevention of Cruelty: The History and Legacy of Animal Rights Activism in the United States, by Diane Beers, I recommend doing so as it provides pre-Peter Singer history of animal rights that we all need to be aware of.
Because I consider myself an abolitionist, I was particularly interested in how people who lived in the 19th century and had similar views fared in a society that was just starting to get rid of bear-baiting and pigeon shoots (although we still shoot doves and geese and ducks).
All I want to do for this post is to read some passages from a small section of the book. You might be surprised by how familiar they sound. Pay careful attention to the years they refer to.
- Page 70: "In October 1877, the American Humane Association convened its first meeting, and the early conventions drew a diverse membership. Conservative elements, however, soon commandeered the group and inaugurated a new brand of activism, one that championed collaboration rather than altercation. Suggesting that humanitarians should diplomatically engage in ‘conciliatory negotiations with livestock interests,’ the AHA invited railroad and stockyard executives to its annual conventions. Together, the parties carved out a safe, noncontroversial balance between profits and protection. In particular, AHA officials consulted with shippers on plans for a more humane cattle car, and beginning in 1880, they awarded prizes for the best designs."
- Later on page 70, Beers writes: "Once the AHA cemented its rapport with the railroads, it formed a similar alliance with meatpacking executives, focusing again on the humane education of slaughterhouse employees and the sponsorship of contests for improved stunning and killing devices."
- And on the following page, Beers writes: "As the national organization’s reputation and influence as a political insider spread, its policies increasingly reflected the interests of opponents, and conventions increasingly ousted radical delegations. . . . More-radical groups might simultaneously publish explicit exposes, prosecute companies for violations, admonish consumers for eating cruelly produced meat, and even endorse vegetarianism, but the AHA carefully avoided any tactics that would antagonize its proindustry beneficiaries."
- Later on that page: "Association leaders contended that radical sermonizing about fanciful abolitionist goals such as vegetarianism and unreasonable regulation alienated the public and harmed the cause by making it susceptible to charges of fanaticism."
- On page 93, Beers writes: "Like many social justice movements, when animal advocacy began, it was a novel and sensational phenomenon that attracted a great deal of public attention (mostly hostile). But as organizations proliferated and campaigns succeeded, the notion of animal rights, albeit a very incomplete notion, seeped slowly into the general culture. The movement was no longer the edgy, raging, headline controversy but rather the weekly feature on the radio . . . . And more celebrities than ever aligned with the cause."
- Finally, on page 94, Beers writes: "Acceptance entailed more cultural, political, and economic power, but that power was circumscribed by public expectations of moderation and compromise. In turn, the movement’s radicals were further alienated, maintaining that compromise served to entrench cruelty by obscuring only its most viscerally objectionable features. As in the antislavery fight, they contended, there could be no compromise for something so thoroughly wrong."
That's why I think it comes down to refusing to compromise, or betraying the goal of rights for animals. The lesson from abolition of human slavery is that it really can't be both.
Wow! Amazing! Thanks for the information. This proves that "new welfarists" are nothing but reactionaries.
"New welfarism" per se is a straw man; the word is only used in a derogatory sense. One might equally draw attention to how much progress the new rightests (haven't) made by not engaging with anyone on their goals? (Glib, I know, but for a reason).
This is kind of bugging me because I have been called a "new welfarist" several times this week and am reading all over the place online. It is fine to use any label when in in-group discussion but now I am being "told" my own mind and the name of my philosophy by way of Gary Francione–who although profoundly intelligent and insightful is not a leader or defining theorist of my movement. Welfarism (as we like to call it) has always had abolitionist and pragmatic elements, this is by no means new and its pitfalls have been widely discussed for many centuries. As a behaviorist I suppose I should be used to this kind of 'you are what we say you are' thing by now, but this version of it is indeed "new". I guess it means abolitionist groups are busy firming up their identity by way of saying what they are not, and why?
Emily,
Though I haven't had any time to surf around recently, I'm pretty sure I know what you're referring to, and if I may, here are my two cents: Because the state of animal rights is so confused and the mainstream public thinks everyone who believes in animal rights is a PETA member or that PETA does indeed define what animal rights is, there is a dire need for people who believe that animals are not ours to use–and whose lives are as fully aligned with that as possible–to come together (however loosely) and let the world know that we do not believe that incremental changes in the way animals are treated will ever lead to abolition, therefore we do not campaign for them. We concentrate on use rather than abuse (if you do that, the abuse part is implicitly covered). I know you know this, but stay with me for a moment. I agree that "new welfare" is negative, however it is useful in that it quickly lets you know that someone probably wants to abolish the use of animals, but will do so by campaigning for reforms.
As far as Gary Francione goes, because he coined "new welfarism," and his theory of property and rights is the one that changed the ways of most people who thought they were abolitionists (like me, by the way), most of today's abolitionists owe him a debt of gratitude.
Some abolitionists are rather, shall we say, "enthusiastic" about Gary Francione and property rights. My advice is to say what you need to say–once–and move on. I've seen back-and-forths that go on for 100 posts and nothing is learned. No progress is made.
This particular battle might not be a good use of your time. Welfarism, in my opinion, and particularly after reading Beers, is not the way to go. In some ways we have made very little progress because we have worked with exploiters. We see that now, just as those before us saw it over 100 years ago.
It's time to do something different.
And when you recall the slave-abolitionists, or think about people who want to abolish, say, the death penalty (like me), they don't compromise. The goal is abolition, and they don't concentrate on better treatment, as that recognizes the institution as legitimate (and they disagree).
Does any of this help?
My objection is that it is almost certainly reasonable for an abolitionist to specify they are not a "new welfarist", but not to insist that I *am* one (which has been occuring). The battle to define one's own identity is always worth it, I think otherwise I would be describing gender, sexual and racial identity according to other peoples words and so, implicity, their judgements.
I though it worth mentioning that people being called "new welfarist" do not call themselves that and the word is fast becoming a slur with a meaning roughly equivalent to hypocrite or traitor and so should be weilded with some care. I won't digress into my reasons for considering welfarism's small gains worthwhile, but needless to say I do. A critique of futility could certainly also be made of abolition movements.
I don't know about your advocacy, Emily, but "new welfarism" is really animal husbandry activism, which is what I now prefer to call it. Absent speciesism, no one can claim to promote the welfare of animals by better methods of raising and killing them.
It seems we need terms to define what's happening and reach our goals. When the goal is to promote a holistic respect for non-human animals, campaigns which require they be seen as products/property work against that. And the "improvements" are so minimal, the only thing they accomplish is making animal use more acceptable.
Unfortunately, animal advocacy (if we can even call it that) is an incoherent mess! What's labeled "animal rights" is almost always husbandry activism. Singer is not leading the animal rights movement because he doesn't speak for animal rights.
Francione has said there is no animal rights movement in the US, but Friends of Animals is an animal rights group, and there may be others here. It would be a whole lot easier to join the crowd– again, speaking generally– to promote the kind of phoney, feel-good activism that draws attention to a group, but serves animals to the public on a plate.
About futility, Emily, abolition doesn't stand chance as long as wealthy, mainstream groups give animal consumers a clear conscience.
It is easy to blame the apparent competition between pro-animal movements but is there any truth in it? In the end being "nice" to slaves (as the owners in many regions arguably were) had no great impact on whether people would tolerate slavery or not, it is not an issue of suffering but of unalienable rights. If I choose to prevent a certain slave from being whipped that is because I care about his or her pain now, I can simultaneously care about his or her freedom, now or later even if providing that is beyond my abilities.
I can point to areas where welfarism caused specific animals to suffer less and consider that a good thing. It doesn't prop up the industries for the simple reason that meat eaters don't care about welfare any more than they do about rights. I can assure you I get more day to day grief from agribusiness than any other group. I just get it from animal rights groups also. The special joy of being a moderate is in being half way between the cannons of both sides atop a mountain of the indifferent. And they are the people who need to be involved for the slaves to ever be freed.
From what I can see, Emily, a whole lot of people are proud of eating 'humane' meat and dairy. As long as most people don't think about animals, and most others are willing to believe animal use can be compassionate, there's little incentive for a plant-based diet. Even environmentalists are looking for excuses.
I think human slavery was abolished because it was understoood that, no matter what improvements were made, slavery is inherently inhumane– and equally, that "race" doesn't qualify freedom.
Imo, animal advocates need to follow that example, by showing others that animal use is inherently inhumane, and that species should not qualify freedom, any more than "race" does.
As I mentioned on the Grist blog, animal husbandry activism is not presented as less cruel. It's promoted as a way to use animals compassionately, because that's the only way to attract activists to the campaign and the organization.
The respect animals need can't stop at making them comparatively comfortable in a bad situation. Imo, it has to include the whole animal, beginning with validating their interest in staying alive. It's true, people who don't think about animals aren't interested in their rights, but by focusing on abolition, at least the people who do care won't be working to promote animal industries. Hopefully in time the people who don't care at all will be forced to reconsider.
Just a comment. "New welfarists" is in no way intended to be derogatory (though some people might use it in that way). It is just descriptive of a movement.
Welfarists campaign for better treatment of non-humans. Welfarist believe that animal use is acceptable since they believe non-humans have NO rights.
Rights campaigners campaign for the abolition of all non-human animal use.
The coining of the term "New welfarists" is only fair as a description of those who believe that animals have rights and that animal use is wrong, but prefare (for their reasons) to campaign for better treatment.
Whether new-welfarism is philosophically or ethically sound or practically effective (or reactionary) is another question which has been dealt with in Gary Francione's books and website.
Honestly, Kenneth? Speaking about groups (not well intentioned activists), I think perhaps you're too kind. I don't mean Francione coined "new welfarists" as derogatory– but personally, I think either the leaders of these groups can't think rationally, or they are (what I suspect) just promoting their organization with campaigns and hollow victories which they know won't work.
The reason I suspect the latter is these leaders are intelligent– they must know that in order for these "improvements" to be adopted, they have to have a market for the animals farmed in this manner. So there's no way they can claim they're not supporting animal consumption. There's also no way they can deny many vegetarians have resumed meat eating because now they can eat "humane" meat.
If they were honest, they'd admit it's impossible to monitor every farm worker and facility– idyllic farms belong to Disney. I think it's about sincerity here. Are they promoting their groups, or helping animals?
True, Ellie. I was referring more to individual well-intentioned activists, and not the large groups.
My post was more as a reply to emily, who I am sure is a well intentioned activist.