It's not entirely true, I do care a bit - I wouldn't actively condone the beating of puppies. And I'd say I was against cruel farming methods, don't buy eggs from caged hens etc. etc. But I would say I've never engaged with the issue in the same way that someone who is against the wanton torture of old ladies couldn't be said, on that merit, to be engaged with civil liberties. It's the kind of apathy where you end up holding populist moral views that are absorbed by osmosis in lieu of any active engagement - no caged eggs etc etc. Your basic animal welfare position.
Back to what set me thinking about all of this. Today, I saw an advert for so called Peace Silk- this is Silk that lets the pupae (yes, pupae) live out its natural life, fall in love, witness a sunset, laugh, cry and so on. As opposed to the conventional silk making method in which it is 'boiled to death'. And, lets be honest, that phrase sits comfortably with no one. But - really - should I care? What are the consequences for my moral code if being anti cruelty to pupae becomes integrated within it? I've actively condoned the mass slaughter of an entire community of maggots before now, using a similar death-by-boiling method. Should I now reproach myself? It's a moral maze!
Maybe I'm being facetious. Making these distinctions maybe I risk neutering with technicality an argument that's essentially about respect for life. Though Singers argument hinges on the thing in question having an 'interest' or being capable of suffering, which is questionable I think, when it comes to Pupae. Maybe Peace Silk would gain more truck if it took PETA's fish/sea kittens approach and re-branded them baby butterflies.
I think this confused attitude is largely reflected in the state of left leaning politics - animal rights are an issue which have become dislocated from the main body of lefty activism, despite, or even because of the fact that animal rights have been discussed and worried over since the 1600's. Yes, far left publications like Schnews and Indymedia still give radical animal activism a lot of space. But the New Internationalist has not really mentioned any of God's little creatures since the early nineties. This neglect by the fringe may be because the issue of animal welfare (rather than the more radical and marginalized animal liberation) has plenty of support from the mainstream - Jamie Oliver and his pigs, Hugh Fernly-Wittingstall and his chickens - and so the whole animal thing seems like a non issue in terms of raising awareness.
It's more noteworthy that the radical animal liberation movement, as well it knows, has been abandoned by much of the Guardian-reading left, in a way that conservative speculation has somehow missed, still lumping 'greenies, animal rights nuts and climate change fascists' together in a sentence. Ugly headlines have left their mark, and it seems like a good idea for any one taking direct action to distance their cause from animal activism, lest it be smeared with granny defilement. The most recent edition of Schnews bemoans this fact, accusing the 'moderate' left of taking up the fight for civil liberties only when their own are threatened. They claim that animal rights activists have been single handedly defending themselves against authoritarian measures to suppress them for years. In fact, there's actually an awful lot of bitterness in the far left publication on the alienation of animal rights activists from other forms of left wing activism. Stage an anti war march, and every single person with a complaint against the government turns up. Animal rights rallies tend to be given a wide berth. Schnews also claims that animal libbers receive harsher treatment by the law. It's this sentiment that has lead to mistrust of Guardian Blogger Henry Porters Convention for Modern Liberty Coalition, not least because of the involvement of the hated Countryside Alliance.
Animal libbers' difficult relationship with feminism over the years might also go a small way to explaining their isolation. Women were the primary target of the anti fur campaign, and the phrase 'rich bitch! poor bitch' adorning a poster was a source of contention. Even today, one of the first things you witness on PETA's website is a pro-veggie advert featuring provocatively dressed women caressing themselves with vegetables*. Yes, its clearly meant to be funny, but there's also some Uncle Tom-ing going on in the way of the what-are-we-supposed-to-do-sex-gets-attention attitude, which has long been the excuse of the advertising industry for saturating cultural space with rigid and unhelpful sexual images of women. Veggie feminists may well be frustrated at their being forced to choose between their ethics and their dignity on this one.
So we have ourselves an outpost, whose members grow more and more resentful of the 'moderate left', whilst further becoming demonised by the mainstream. Is there any hope we might all pull together? Is there any reason to?
Having somehow brought up feminism, it seems neatly fitting at this point to come full circle and mention the arguments of feminists such as Josephine Donavan. In her view, 'theorizing animals is inevitable for feminism' because their 'oppression' is symptomatic of the kind of patriarchy that renders other creatures subservient to it. Feminists and defenders of civil liberties campaigners should by this argument promote animal rights in their quest to overthrow the arbitrary dominance over and the instrumental use of other creatures by the status quo.
To bring this entry back to me personally. In explaining my apathy, I believe I've chosen other battles**. And this is a common attitude - where these orphan issues lie so close to the boundaries of your interests that you feel obliged to explain why they've not been taken on board and cared for as one of your own - often its felt that there's no time, there's limited resources and they must ruthlessly be directed where they are needed the most. Also, giving time to animal rights might be seen as avoiding the larger problem, and treating a symptom rather than the illness as a whole.
But I think it merits examining exactly what your political beliefs entail. For instance, a large section of contemporary feminism increasingly disavows the antiporn movement, and the kind of politics that involves itself in condemning the beauty industry. Certain feminist voices will say that this kind of campaigning detracts from the 'real issue' of the glass ceiling and the pay gap. I would argue that you cannot be concerned with one without recognising the other, particularly with the recent study linking the observation of sexfully dressed women with activity in the part of the male brain that deals with 'use of tools'. And possibly it's the same attitude that campaigns for civil liberties but sneers at animal rights activism (or vice versa). Maybe civil rights campaigners should be paying more attention to what they have in common with their shovel-wielding, puppy-humping pals. They could certainly do with the legitimacy.
Oblique, fun-times-with-postmodernism post colonial theorist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak coined the term 'strategic essentialism' to try to untangle this very mess. Simplistically it describes a the uniting disparate minority groups against a common enemy. Though she emphasised this must be brief, political and strategic, without buying into the follies of philosophical essentialism. But then, she didn't give a shit about animals either.
So what's the lesson? Maybe I should learn to be more nuanced at recognising who is actually engaged in the same battles as me, who actually shares the same root attitude, despite expressing it in an unfamiliar way. I certainly didn't mean to write about feminism, but up it cropped. I've learned something today.
I still don't know what I think about animal rights though, but maybe gazing at these pictures of a bowl of delicious deep fried silkworm pupae, and collection of equally delicious kittens will help shed some light on the matter.
*the list of reasons it was denied airtime during the Superbowl is actually quite funny - see 'touching her breast with her hand while eating broccoli'
**By 'battles' I obviously mean 'things to sit around and complain about'
1 comment:
Hi Eleanor - found this blog via your Facebook page. It's really good!
Post a Comment