On Steve Best and Norm Phelps
Steve Best reviewed Norm Phelps in the Journal for Critical Animal Studies (check it out here, and also check out the article on humane education). Shortly thereafter, Phelps e-mailed Best regarding that review, and so began months of e-mail exchanges between two men who have a lot in common but disagree on some very important points.
What was fascinating for me in their e-mails, which they have posted at Thomas Paine's Corner, is that I don't completely agree with either of them. If you've read Animal Person for a while, you probably know that I have a difficult time blaming capitalism for the misery that has befallen animals or humans. I see more of a problem with human nature than any political or economic or religious system or institution. Even with the current economic crisis, I don't blame capitalism, per se, although free-marketer/Friedmanites definitely put us on a certain course. But it was the people who were the problem, in my mind. They see an opening/something they can get away with, and they jump in. The circumstance may have been ripe for it, but they didn't have to do it–the circumstance didn't make them do it.
Phelps writes:
That being the case, changing the social or economic system without first changing the moral standing of animals in the public consciousness would make no difference in the lives of animals. Once the animals have caught up with humans in this regard, then changes in the social, political, or economic system could have beneficial effects for them—depending, of course, on the nature of those changes.
I highly recommend reading the exchange.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Mary. I am not pro-capitalism and in fact I'd like to see either major reform or abolition, but animal exploitation isn't necessarily linked to capitalism. China, for example, is doing a hell of a job exploiting animals and they are not nearly as capitalist as we are.
I disagree with you, however, on the cause. I don't think it's 'human nature' to exploit, abuse, be violent, etc. I think it's social custom, a custom that crosses all economic and social systems. I think it's a perceived path to human stability or freedom. I think there are many "causes".
I wouldn't go so far as your Phelps quote to say capitalism has no role and is merely an "after-the-fact justification." I think capitalism enables animal exploitation. They work in tandem. But then, animal exploitation can work in tandem with any number of systems. It just so happens that capitalism enables the form of exploitation we currently see as one of the most evil: the for profit factory farm. But factory farms could be nonprofit, set up to "feed the people" and they'd be just as bad.
I agree with Phelps that humans exploit animals because they can. It's that simple. (And complex at the same time, because no single social theory can explain it. It just is.)
Our task is to prevent as much of that as possible. There will always be some section of the human population that exploits animals (and other humans). Our task is to limit the exploitative people's powers and help prevent future generations from adopting that exploitative mindset.
I will confess that I only just scanned the email exchanges, primarily because the first photo was of one of PETA's naked campaigns. I remember, full well, the discussions at the joint conference of FAR (Feminists for Animal Rights) and FoA (Friends of Animals)of supporters and non-supporters of this new, at the time, direction for PETA. It's okay to exploit women, just don't exploit non-human animals. It's obvious to me that both of these men are firmly entrenched in patriarchal thinking. Human nature is violent and selfish? Male nature is violent and selfish. Freud, egos, men quoting men. One minor mention of the success of the civil rights and women's movements? Did neither of them bear witness to the misogyny of the primaries and Presidential campaigns? One of the reasons that I so enjoy reading your blog is that it is an intelligent, thoughtful, caring woman's voice……..a nice change from the white male voices dominating so much of all the discussions on radio, TV or the internet. I'd recommend reading some ecofeminist writings, including Carol Adams, Marti Kheel, Greta Gaard, Susan Griffin and Andree Collard & Joyce Contrucci. Isn't the difference between vegetarianism and veganism a difference between violence toward all and ending the violence toward the female of the species (milk from the female cow; eggs from hens)?
You know, I really don't think that human nature is what's selfish, greedy and exploitative. I shouldn't have said that. Connie reminds me of what I really think, which is that it is male nature, or at least that the propensity for that behavior seems much more prevalent and stronger in men. Connie, I don't see the difference between veganism and vegetarianism the way Adams and Kheel do (the only ones on your list whom I've read), although I see how they CAN be interpreted that way. It's simply not where my mind goes first (not that I disagree with them).
Perhaps there are proclivities, and then the dominant culture either supports or quashes them, and we all know how that's turned out.
I think the discussion between Phelps and Best is just the sort of dialogue we need more of — which is not to say there aren't other points of view to consider, just as the ecofeminist. But I think blanket statements like "Male nature is violent and selfish" are silly and unhelpful, and not something Carol Adams, for instance, would agree with. (If the claim is true, we might as well just give up hope for significant social progress — or have all male infants, like male chicks, killed at birth.)
It's not an either or thing: change consciousness or change institutions. Capitalism is indeed a major problem for animals. The fact that communism (or more accurately "state socialism", since communism was always the unrealized ideal of a future stateless, classless, democratic society) is at least as bad reflects the fact that both systems are forms of what I would call "industrialism", defined as the organization of society for the maximization of production and consumption. I recommend Robert L. Heilbroner's very clearly written book The Nature and Logic of Capitalism, in which he explains the way the system works and the world-view that necessarily accompanies it, including the view of nature as a storehouse of resources, without intrinsic value. Heilbroner is not concerned with animals as such, but the implications are clear and compelling.
For the most part I too see different tactics working in different situations. And always the issue of direct action leaves me arguing with myself. I don't know why in every other circumstance of struggle over oppression I agree with (limited) use of "violence", yet regarding a war against animal abusers I'm hesitant to condone violent acts. My conclusion is that to a degree I must be a "speciesist". And I'm working on this flaw.
I have no doubt that as the future progresses and AR activism reaches a tipping point that violence will escalate. But the pacifist in me wants to exhaust all other options… And in this sense I agree with Phelps that we are "groping our way in the right direction". But will add that limited, effective, direct action is part of that "groping" process and is unavoidable. Perhaps even "necessary"… "Garrison’s Dilemma".
I think Gary Francione has an excellent legal argument but I don't think animal's "day in court" will progress unless we unify as Best suggests. Vegan advocacy of course must never end, but I hardly think the critical mass needed for change is going to occur through this alone.
It would be folly to dismiss all the connections between human, animal, and environmental issues. I think the only way to increase awareness is to involve all the social justice and ecological movements to animal liberation. Or (excuse the phrase), we will remain an isolated movement, until the cows come home.
Phelps stated that, until we change the 9universal) moral standing of animals, any system will continue to abuse power and enslave animals. Bron Taylor reflected about the same thing in his forward to "Igniting A Revolution" (p.3). Phelps said something interesting :
"I believe that only after the animals’ perspective on the human-animal relationship has been established and analyzed—a project which is still in its infancy—will it be possible to fit that relationship into its proper place in terms of social, political, and economic theory".
The animals' perspective? How is this to be accomplished? Is he saying that we need more animal comprehension like those in books such as "The Emotional Life of Animals" ?
"…it will be necessary to do much more of the preliminary work of writing explanatory histories (and sociologies) that focus on animals". But then Phelps goes on to say that :
"The difficulty with identifying causal relationships in major historical trends is, of course, that most hypotheses a) cannot be tested, and b) have no predictive function that can serve to keep them tied to reality, .Therefore, they tend to be expressions of ideology masquerading as historical analysis. Historical trends have a uniqueness that typically frustrates causal analysis".
I don't know if Phelps is painting himself into a corner here. So i agree with Bea, for the need to do our best and integrate the movements,adding perhaps some unifying theories regarding the value of life.