Handleiding Archivering BZ

The role of philosophical theory in political activism: animal advocacy and the political turn Master’s thesis in Philosophy of a specific discipline (Sociology) University of Amsterdam Joost Leuven [email protected] Student number: 10061606 Supervisors: Dr. Robin Celikates and Eva Meijer MA Second reader: Dr. Karen Vintges June 15, 2015 “Seeing social movements as a source of vision and voice, rather than the van- guard of a new world, I am not bothered by the fact that they accomplish so few of their stated goals. These goals are often overdrawn; the importance of protestors, I think, lies more in their moral visions than their practical accom- plishments. They are more like poets than engineers.” James Jasper The Art of Moral Protest : Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social Movements (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1997: p. 379) Page 3 of 70 Table of Contents 0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 7 1 Philosophical theories on the human-animal relationship ............................ 11 1.1 Negative rights and obligations: welfare or rights? ............................................. 11 1.2 Positive animal rights .......................................................................................... 16 1.3 Interpreting the political turn ............................................................................... 21 1.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 24 2 The role of philosophical theories in animal advocacy .................................. 26 2.1 The philosophical debate on movement strategy ................................................ 28 2.2 Social movement culture and activist philosophy ............................................... 31 2.3 Changing the way people think ........................................................................... 38 2.4 What all this means for the philosophical debate ................................................ 44 2.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 45 3 A movement strategy for negative and positive animal rights ...................... 47 3.1 A movement strategy more faithful to its philosophy ......................................... 48 3.2 The alienated natural allies of the animal rights movement ................................ 52 3.3 The long road ahead ............................................................................................ 55 4 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 57 5 References .......................................................................................................... 62 Page 5 of 70 0 Introduction Although the animal rights movement is certainly winning some battles in the struggle for animal emancipation, it seems it is losing the war. Most philosophers, trying to explain the movement’s overall failure, have turned towards the animals rights activists and animal rights organisations themselves, arguing that they are to blame for the movement’s failure, because they adhere to and promote a flawed animal ethic. This thesis will argue that philosophers are mis- taken in this regard. It will discuss recent theoretical developments in animal ethics and explore the role of philosophical theory in contemporary animal advocacy. The contemporary animal rights movement is one of the rare cases of a social movement that was instigated primarily by the work of moral philosophers. The philosophical writings of authors such as Peter Singer, Tom Regan and Richard Ryder changed attitudes towards animals in the 1970s, inspired activists and thus helped bring about a new social movement aimed at the emancipation of animals (Jasper & Nelkin 1992). Interest in the human-animal relationship and concern for the wellbeing of animals has been growing, both pub- lically and academically (Aaltola 2011). This hasn’t translated though into a decline of the number of animals that are being held captive and killed for human consumption each year. In fact, those numbers still seem to be growing rapidly, as well as the number of animals whose habitat is being threatened by the continued expansion of human settlements (Wadiwel 2009: p. 283-285). Furthermore, while the numbers of people who are vegetarian or vegan might indeed be growing, the number of ex-vegans and ex-vegetarians is growing too (Cooney 2004: p. 85-86). Although the movement has achieved some success, after forty years of activism the emancipation of nonhuman animals still seems almost as far away as it was decades ago. These troubling developments urge philosophers, political scientists and activists to reflect critically on the strategy, ideology and tactics of the animal rights movement and try to find an an- Page 7 of 70 swer to the question why the animal rights movement seems to be so unsuc- cessful. The most prominent philosophical debate dealing with the movement’s strategy is the ‘abolition or regulation’ debate, which centres on the question whether activists should promote moderate welfare reforms (such as larger cages or more humane types of slaughter) to achieve animal liberation or should instead more consistently foster animal rights philosophy and stick to advocating the total abolition of all animal use. While this debate focuses on the strategy of the movement, it is also a debate about the movement’s ideology and philosophical theory, as the two main rivalling positions are closely related to two prominent opposing theories within personal ethics, namely utilitarian welfarism and deontological rights theory. The choice of activists to promote one or the other of these two theories, lies at the core of the movement’s problems, according to philosophers such as Gary Francione and Robert Garner. Propo- nents of rights theory argue that activists have largely rejected rights theory and have chosen a welfarist philosophy, and they blame this for the movement’s failure, as they believe welfarist messages do not adequately challenge the property status of animals and may even somewhat legitimize animal use. Pro- ponents of welfarism on the other hand argue that it is a strict adherence to rights theory that has been holding the movement back. In recent years the field of animal ethics has undergone a ‘political turn’, a turn from personal ethics towards political theory. One of the most prominent ex- amples of such a political theory is the one proposed by Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka in their book Zoopolis: a political theory of animal rights (2011). They criticize the traditional positions within animal ethics, such as welfarism and rights theory, for focussing too much on negative obligations (such as the right not to be enslaved, killed or experimented upon), whilst ig- noring the positive obligations humans might have towards animals (such as duties to help animals in need, to provide healthcare for animals in the commu- nity and respect animals’ habitat). They propose to supplement universal nega- Page 8 of 70 tive rights for animals with group-differentiated positive rights for animals. They argue that their political theory of animal rights is not only more complete and compelling philosophically, but might also solve the animal rights movement ineffectiveness (Donaldson & Kylicka 2011: p. 5, 252-258). In this sense, Donaldson and Kymlicka too, just like the other authors in the ‘abolition or regulation’ debate, argue that the failure of the animal rights movement can be partially attributed to activists fostering a wrong philosophical theory. The academic debate on Zoopolis has mostly focused on its intellectual merits, the extent to which its philosophical theory is able to provide a more compelling and complete picture of what a post-animal liberation society would look like. Little has been said about its strategic and political merits for the animal rights movement and the way a shift in philosophical theory might impact political activism. This thesis aims to remedy this by exploring the relationship between philosophical theory and animal advocacy in relation to the political theory presented in Donaldson and Kymlicka’s Zoopolis. Because many philosophers attribute the failure of the animal rights movement to particular philosophical theories that are supposedly being promoted, I will in the first chapter, Philosophical theories on the human-animal relationship, look at the different philosophical theories in contemporary animal ethics. It will discuss the essential characteristics of welfarism and rights theory as well as review Donaldson and Kymlicka’s political theory, answering the first research question, namely whether philosophers should take an explicitly political approach to animal ethics and look at positive animal rights as well as negative ones. This review of the philosophical merits of Donaldson and Kymlicka’s theory and the comparison with the other theories will form the basis for the evaluation of the strategic merits of their theory in the third chapter. In the second chapter, The role of philosophy in animal advocacy, I will focus on answering the second research question, namely what role philosophical theory currently plays in animal advocacy and whether this is the role it ought Page 9 of 70 to play. I will problematize a basic assumption that

Load more