On Speciesm, the ALF and the Media
I approached the essays in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? with an open mind and discovered that I couldn’t disagree with the notion that being against nonviolent direct action (that includes property damage and sabotage) is speciesist. As Kevin Jonas writes in "Bricks and Bullhorns":
"Activists debate the ‘appropriateness’ of certain tactics, and many fear losing the moral high ground in seeking to intimidate the opposition.
Such criticism of direct action and controversial ventures like SHAC is a speciesist insult to those animals who depend on humans to advocate on their behalf. If those opposed to direct action are really honest with themselves, they will have to admit that they do not believe the goal of animal liberation justifies the tactics they claim to oppose but would support in other contexts. Most people do support property destruction, violence, and murder for certain causes. If people in Liberia were being rendered for food, it would be a safe bet that most would support a war to end such an atrocity. If critics of the ALF and SHAC honestly faced the internalized prejudices that they harbor, and imagined that it was white, middle-class kindergartners from Kansas being pumped full of bleach or anally electrocuted, most would be ready to take up arms themselves. . . .
Those who may ethically support the ALF and the use of controversial means, but see it as a strategic mistake because of the negative impact on public opinion, have only themselves to blame. It is the failure of movement organizations and speakers to reframe the debate away from the tactic to the more substantive issues of animal exploitation. It is a tragic mistake and a setback for the animal rights movement to let the media determine our tactical agenda because of a fear of negative coverage" (270).
When one claims to be against speciesism, but would use certain tactics in the service of humans but not nonhumans, I have no choice but to say that’s a profound contradiction (a.k.a., hypocrisy). I would, however welcome any explanation that says otherwise.
As for allowing a fear of negative coverage to determine tactical agenda, I see both sides of that, and agree with Karen Dawn (and I don’t agree with her a lot of the time) in "From the Front Line to the Front Page" (also in TOFF) that if the ALF had "a real battle plan" (228) with regard to the media, the messages that reach the public might be of a different, sympathetic sort. I think if you’re going to do something that could very well come off looking negative, part of your plan (by necessity) should be components that address that. I think the negative coverage aspect can be neutralized and transformed. I also think the coverage could be framed as pro-animal and pro-justice rather than anti-human. Now, if you don’t agree with anything the ALF does it doesn’t matter, but to make your decision based on coverage that can be changed, that’s a different story.
Then again, those involved with the ALF would have to do all the work. If we don’t know what they’re doing or when, our hands are tied. And if they don’t communicate that their attitude toward the media has changed and that there will be a quasi public relations component built into their activities, those who don’t support them because of negative coverage will continue to not support them.
Where Kevin's analogy breaks down is that it fails to take in both the scale of the problem and its roots. We live in a world in which the vast majority of humans consider it totally acceptable to treat and use nonhuman animals as a means to our trivial ends. Of course, most people in this world find it reprehensible to anally electrocute other humans (for example), and would even support us in our efforts to liberate those humans. But when have over tens of billions of humans ever been in this situation? When have one set of beings ever so completely dominated and based nearly every facet of its society so thoroughly in the exploitation of other beings?
We are not only desperately outnumbered and unable to rescue a meaningful fraction of the nonhumans harmed by humans (compared to the number of humans that have been cruelly exploited or otherwise harmed by other humans, our use of animals is nearly unfathomable). It's pointless to argue that an ARA is being speciesist because one chooses to focus one's efforts on trying to promote a society that isn't speciesiest instead of the even more Sisyphean task endlessly rescuing animals from a system that is practically untouched by such activities and that will never change until society changes. If we lived in a world where 6 billion humans were bred and killed for other humans' purposes every year, and the other approximately .7 billion people didn't care and did nothing about it, then maybe such analogies would hold water. If we lived in that world, we'd be speciesist if we were not fighting for the liberation of all beings. And, of course, we'd still best achieve that liberation by transforming societal norms, not by rescuing thousands of humans every year.
None of this is to say that I think we should disapprove of anyone rescuing any being from a harmful situation, but we should remember that those who choose not to engage in this behavior are not necessarily speciesist. After all, who among us endangers our everyday lives to go rescue political prisoners from unjust situations?
Eric,
I don't disagree that the scale of the problem is huge and different. But I don't know if scale matters to the analogy. And with regard to the roots, I think the roots are the same (hence alliance politics): viewing another as other and having less value based on skin color or sex. When I'm talking about speciesim here, I'm talking as a linguist and saying: I can't disagree with Jonas' premise. The concept of acting when someone is being exploited (if we were talking about humans), but not acting when a different someone is being exploited.
As far as doing the act yourself or supporting it, I (sometimes) support individuals running for office because I believe in what they're doing, yet I'd never run for office myself. I'm not recruiting people to action, necessarily. What I want is for people to figure out where they stand and what they're willing to support, either directly or indirectly.
We can endanger our lives or our own freedom for causes, nonhuman and human, and/or we can support that work in other ways.
I completely agree with Eric.
And he said what he had to say with a whole lot of logic.
This debate on ALF and "non-violent direct action" (a debatable term when speaking of "property damage and sabotage" – euphemistic words for what ALF really does) has gone on for weeks on this blog, it seems. I realize that you, Mary, are exploring new avenues in animal rights approaches…but, to me, they are dead-end avenues. And frankly, it's disturbing that so many vegan animal rights activists are not only willing to consider this avenue, but actively pursue it. I became a vegan because I believed in peace toward animals, all animals. If that's "speciesist," than so be it. "Speciesism" – just another one of these words to bounce around the court to "win" a pointless argument. Pointing fingers at people who are vegan and became so because they desire ultimate peace is simply absurd.
Animal Person is the only blog I read on a daily basis. Because I find 99% of blogs to be full of opinion (hot air) and null of fact. On Animal Person, I often learn of current news going on in the animal world. And I used to agree often with your opinions to boot. But this new road you're taking, Mary, I can't go down it with you. It goes against what every bone in my body is screaming…the need for peace everywhere. I wish more people read history books…from ancient times to the present. They are filled with "stories" of violence, violence, violence. Only thing is…they're not "stories." Violence fills people with hate and prompts more violence. It is a cycle that has been going on since man developed thumbs.
I will take no part in it.
If animal activists cannot win their battles peacefully, it just means they need to work harder perhaps…
Using their minds.
And their words.
It's a challenge isn't it?
But a worthy one.
Thanks for reading, as always, bunny.
I too think people should read history books. Particularly the history of social justice movements. The liberation of women and slaves (to use US examples) was not achieved through boycotts and petitions and changes in consumer behavior and I have to admit that and consider that maybe there's something I can learn.
Raising topics that are uncomfortable for people to read or discuss is something I've done for my entire life and I don't see myself stopping anytime soon. Sorry.
As for pointless arguments, I disagree. When I first started blogging I was contacted by some people who told me that I was a speciesist for not doing for animals (indirectly or directly) what I'd do for humans. And I cannot disagree with those people. I do think that's speciesist and I find myself with a fascinating conundrum as there was no way, at that time, that I'd ever entertain anything but completely peaceful campaigning.
Am I going to go around calling vegans speciesists? No. I don't even use the term new welfarist. I'm not here to hurl insults, but to ask questions and leave no stone unturned for my own personal edification.
I've been working my way through a couple of books (TOFF and Igniting a Revolution and Aftershock), and also the writing of activists, and I find that they challenge what certain people who are considered "leaders" say. It's a difficult road to follow, but for me it is worth it.
I understand it's not for you.
Mary, I had pretty much the same reaction when I read TorFF. It definitely is something to make one think, which is always (imo) a good thing. I'm glad you're exploring these topics, and I look forward to whatever other issues you explore. I think I'm the same way, if quite a bit less organized about it. I can't help but to feel compelled to learn as much as possible about a wide range of associated issues.
Bunny, what is "property damage and sabotage" a euphemism for? Those seem like straightforward descriptions to me.
Deb, I apologize for my crappy grammar…what I was trying to say was that "non-violent direct action" is a euphemism for the approach that ALF takes in reality.
I really should get in the habit of editing my posts. 🙁
I love this article and very different from many I read. I am abolitionist that also fight for our forest creatures. I also sab hunt and I often get comment from hunters how I am "breaking the law" and how I could be "endangering" them. I told them personally I could care less about their lives my concern is the innocent animals and hunters are not innocent.
I also mentioned that the hunters to me are no different then a child abusers or rapist for they love to dominate the meak and defenseless. Not to say all animal that hunters kill are "meak" but yes they are defenseless and at their mercy. And I also ask them if a 'hunters' see an abuse of a child going on and you know this man is driving regularly to find a victim to abuse would we not do all we can to sabotage impending abuse? So Those who do engage in direct action (I love Dr. Steven Best) I give them so much credit because they see these animals no different then they see children abused. Actually some vegan favor non-human animals then human and for them these are their mission to save.
Your site is new to me but I been reading a lot of your articles and I do love it
I can honestly say that if it were a certain race of humans (or, say, mentally disabled humans) that were being exploited and tortured in the same numbers and it was just as widely accepted, I’d be doing EXACTLY what I’m doing now: peaceful, non-violent education.
Admittedly, my view would change if I knew the opposition to the exploitation was just as strong, militarily, as the exploiters, and the exploiters would not negotiate (the Nazis come to mind), but in a situation where we’re outnumbered 10,000 to 1, all I see is violence and property damage being viewed as nothing but anti-social behavior.
That said, I realize that other people see property damage as part of the solution, regardless of its negative effects, and that violence is simply an integral part of human behavior. Although there are some peaceful humans, as a species in general, we are very aggressive and violent. If I’m not mistaken, E.O. Wilson, a well-known evolutionary biologist, believes that we’re approximately third, behind ants and baboons, in ranking the most aggressive and violent species. If you look at our history of warfare, genocide, and what we do to other species and the planet, that we’re in the top three should be absolutely no surprise. If anything, it’s a bit surprising that we’re not THE most violent species, BY FAR.
I will not criticize those who engage in property damage, but I do not personally support it and I will not engage in it. And I would say that same thing if it were humans being exploited.
I have yet to hear Dr. Steve Best's central premise refuted: Those who accept the philosophy of animal rights as valid and aim for liberation – or more directly, are anti-Speciesism – and yet deny the validity of direct action as an appropriate means to achieve this end are doing so as a reflection of their Speciesism.
Those who would criticize the A.L.F. while at the same time arguing for the liberation of nonhumans, ought to resolve this internal contradiction unless those who do so are also willing to criticize those individuals who used direct action (e.g., the destruction of gas chambers) in their opposition to the Holocaust, for example. If you are unwilling to also criticize the destruction of a slave owners' property while criticizing the destruction of a vivisection lab, you are implicitly placing more value on human interests than on like-nonhuman interests, which is speciesist.
Alex,
The only thing that will bring us closer to abolition is education. As it stands now not enough people understand a) that animals are sentient beings with needs, urges, and feelings similar to our own, or b) the true nature of where our food comes from. (Yes, many are perhaps willfully blind to either or both.) Only when that changes will we have a real chance at abolition.
So-called direct action – that is, destruction of property and sabotage – is antithetical to education. Violence and destruction do not educate, they incite reaction. Every time a lab is destroyed, or a barn burned, or a mother-in-law's corpse exhumed (yes), the animal rights movement GAINS enemies. Readers of these stories in the news steel themselves AGAINST our values. I argue that Dr. Best's central premise in fact states the opposite of reality. Every incident of property damage and sabotage takes us further from the goal of abolition. It is not a matter of whether one thinks the method is valid or not; not a matter of whether we are "willing to go that far" for our cause; it is a question of what will achieve the goal and what will not.
I think those that advocate property damage commit the same offense that many in the movement accuse the "new welfarists" (for lack of a better shorthand – I'm not a fan of that term) of committing. Namely, they act because they feel they have to be doing SOMETHING. It is exhilarating, I have no doubt, to destroy a cage and free a guinea pig. There is a tangible result: an animal is free. The rescuer feels good about her or himself and feels the cause has been aided. I believe in most cases it has been harmed.