• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Krisis 2017, Issue 2 2 www.krisis.eu The Theory and Practice of Contemporary Animal Rights Activism a different position, arguing that in some cases animal use is not problematic and Joost Leuven wouldn’t have to be abolished (Donaldson and Kymlicka 2011). Furthermore, some argue that animals deserve to be part of our communities and try to further con- ceptualise what a ‘post-animal liberation’ society would actually look like, asking questions relating to a range of subjects from animal citizenship to human-animal communication (Meijer 2016). Still, while there is much disagreement concerning what animal liberation really ought to mean, most authors seem to agree that we aren’t there yet. While there have been some improvements in the way domesticated animals are being treated, there hasn’t been a fundamental shift in how people relate to these animals. While the numbers of vegetarians might slowly be increasing in western countries, world- wide meat consumption still continues to rise (Donaldson and Kymlicka 2011, 2) and the number of animals whose habitat is being threatened by the continued In the last few decades both public and academic interest in the human-animal expansion of human settlements is still growing (Wadiwel 2009, 283-285). These relationship has grown. Academically this new interest has resulted not only in a figures contribute to the growing awareness within academic and activist circles large body of literature in the fields of animal ethics and political theory, but also that the contemporary animal rights movement might be winning some battles, in the birth of the new interdisciplinary field of human-animal studies. Outside of but overall it seems to be losing the war. academia the interest in the human-animal relationship and wellbeing of animals has also grown. While this has resulted in growing support for animal welfare and The aim of this article is not to answer the question of why the animal rights rights organisations, there is much doubt among both activists and philosophers movement, since its inception in the 1970s, hasn’t been more successful, nor will as to how successful the animal rights movement has been. Has the movement it try to define exactly what the end goal of the movement is or ought to be. actually succeeded in bringing ‘animal liberation’ any closer to fruition? Instead, it will leave these two questions mostly unanswered and use the debate on the strategy of the animal rights movement as a backdrop for exploring the role of Of course, whether one views the movement as successful would largely depend on philosophical theory in animal advocacy. Many scholars, in attempting to explain what one sees as the end goal of the animal rights movement, and that is far from the movement’s lack of success, have turned towards the animal rights activists and clear. There is still much uncertainty and disagreement about what a world ‘post animal rights organisations themselves, arguing that they are to blame for the animal liberation’, a world in which all animals have been emancipated, would ac- movement’s failure because they adhere to, and promote, flawed ethical theories. tually look like. Some philosophers argue in favour of strict veganism, and their While much of the debate about the animal rights movement’s strategy is focussed vision of an ideal world would have animals and human beings live almost com- on discussing the merits and flaws of different ethical theories, relatively little has pletely separate lives. Our main obligation towards animals, they argue, is to simply been written on what the relationship between those theories and the practice of leave them alone, and in such a world all animal use would be abolished, with many animal advocacy is or ought to be. domesticated animal species slowly going extinct (Dunayer 2004, 117). Others take The Theory and Practice of Contemporary Animal Rights Activism Krisis 2017, Issue 2 3 Joost Leuven www.krisis.eu In the first half, this article takes a closer look at how philosophers debating the theory, such as Tom Regan (Francione and Regan 1992), Joan Dunayer (2004) and strategy of the animal rights movement view the role of the theory in advocacy and Gary Steiner (2008). will compare those views with results of different social studies on the role of the- ory in advocacy. In the second half the article will reflect on the work of Michel While the abolitionist rejection of welfare reforms and the claim that these reforms Foucault and other authors to take an in-depth look at human domination over are counterproductive is somewhat controversial, authors who oppose such a posi- animals and at what value theory can have within advocacy aimed at ending that tion also seem to view this strategic dilemma as fundamentally a question of ide- dominance. ology and philosophical theory. For example, Robert Garner, who disagrees with the animal rights position and is more in favour of a type of welfarism, writes the following in a book which he co-authored with Gary Francione: Debates on the strategy of the animal rights movement “The theoretical debate between the abolitionist approach and protectionist ap- One of the most prominent authors in the debate on the strategy of the animal proach – the latter of which Francione calls ‘new welfarism’ – is not merely an rights movement is Gary Francione, a proponent of animal rights theory, who, in academic one. The practical strategy of animal advocates must necessarily be in- A Rain Without Thunder (1996), claimed that the animal rights movement has been formed by theory, and their political, legal, and social campaigns will be determined a failure due to the ideological and strategic choices made by animal rights organ- by whether they seek ultimately to abolish exploitation or regulate it and whether izations and activists. In his book, he showed that many campaigns of animal rights they believe that regulation will lead to abolition.” (Francione & Garner 2010, xi organisations are not focused on promoting animal rights, but are instead primarily – xii). aimed at advocating small welfare reforms within animal husbandry (such as larger cages or more humane types of slaughter). Francione argued these campaigns were In common with Francione, he argues that the failure of the movement can be counter-productive, as they only served to legitimize rather than challenge the attributed to activists from grassroots organisations and larger NGOs, fostering the property status of animals. They soothe the conscience of consumers by attacking wrong philosophical theories. In his view though, a choice for rights theory, not only the most gratuitous acts of violence within animal husbandry, while accepting welfarism, has been detrimental to the movement’s effectiveness (Francione and the use of animals as a given. Furthermore, he argued that what underlies these Garner 2010). Ingrid Newkirk, whilst debating Francione and Regan, similarly ar- strategic choices is a fundamental rejection of one philosophical theory in favour gued that the political problems of the animal rights movement lie with the strict of another. According to Francione, activists have explicitly rejected the philo- rights philosophy that many activists adhere to, and that such a philosophy would sophical doctrine of animal rights in favour of a theory of utilitarian welfarism be too absolutist and divisive (Newkirk 1992, 44). The problems, according to her, (Francione 1996, 3). What he sees as the solution to the political ineffectiveness of do not lie primarily with outside forces, but can primarily be traced back to activists the animal rights movement are campaigns that more clearly and consistently ad- adhering to and promoting the wrong philosophical theory. Likewise, Sue Don- vocate a theory of animal rights, focussing on promoting veganism as a moral base- aldson and Will Kymlicka have argued in their book Zoopolis that the impasse that line and the complete abolition of animal exploitation. In short, he proposed an the animal rights movement finds itself in can at least partly be attributed to the ‘abolitionist approach’ to advocacy by fostering animal rights philosophy. Similar way animal rights theory has been articulated, and they present their own political views are shared and voiced by many of the prominent proponents of animal rights theory of animal rights in an attempt to help the movement overcome its problems (Donaldson and Kymlicka 2011). The Theory and Practice of Contemporary Animal Rights Activism Krisis 2017, Issue 2 4 Joost Leuven www.krisis.eu Overall it seems that in trying to explain (and solve) the strategic failure of the than attempting to sway the public’s opinion with clearly formulated arguments animal rights movement, many authors in this debate turn to the philosophical (Jasper 1997, 176). theory that activists supposedly adhere to and promote. This raises important ques- tions about the relationship between animal ethical theory and the practice of an- One recent study looking at the relationship between theory and practice in animal imal rights activism. Does theory play a large role in animal advocacy? Do activists advocacy was done by Carrie Freeman (Freeman 2014). Her research looked at how generally foster one (or maybe several) of the main philosophical theories on animal animal rights organisations frame their campaigns, and consisted of interviews and ethics, such as rights theory or utilitarianism? Do they, in their campaigns, clearly an empirical study of flyers and other campaign materials from several animal rights articulate philosophical positions, and how does the choice of philosophical theory organizations. As in Jasper’s work, the results of her study show how limited the influence the practical strategy of animal advocates? Regrettably, relatively little role of philosophical theories, such as rights theory or utilitarian welfarism, actually social research has been done on the relationship between theory and practice is in animal advocacy.

Load more

  12

Copy Link