sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ahimsa, Animal testing, Another Animal, Barbara Noske, Binti Jua, Death of Regan Russell

Beyond : , Sentient Empathy, and -Informed Theatre - As an extension of ourselves… at our sentient best!

by

Davis B. Mirza

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto

© Copyright by Davis B. Mirza 2016 Beyond Animal Testing: Open Rescue, Sentient Empathy, and Research-Informed Theatre- As an extension of ourselves… at our sentient best!

Davis B. Mirza

Masters of Art

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

University of Toronto

2016

Abstract

If is defined as the capacity of living beings to experience sense, cognition and feelings, then the concept of sentient empathy can be described as the direct identification with, understanding of, and affection to another animal's situation, feelings, and motives. As a pressing social issue, can an awareness of animal testing within universities elicit sentient empathy among a wider public? This thesis explores this question by analysing the findings from interviews with three ‘open rescue’ activists. It then examines the possibilities of utilizing

Research-informed Theatre (RIT) for sharing the interview findings, with a view toward eliciting sentient empathy among the public.

Keywords: Animal ; Animal Testing; Sentient Empathy as Activism; ; Social

Justice Education; Research Informed Theatre.

ii Acknowledgements

My thesis project about sentient empathy, ‘open rescue’ and Research Informed Theatre (RIT) was undertaken with the support of an incredibly smart, dedicated and creative network of artists, activists and educators. I owe them a great deal of thanks and appreciation. First, I want to thank my interview respondents, whose hard work and dedication not only helped bring this thesis to life but helped to save hundreds of animal lives for which I am forever grateful and in awe. You remind us all that animals deserve kindness, respect, , empathy and love and I hope I have honoured your tireless commitment to and welfare by drafting RIT scripts that you can all be proud of.

Secondly, I want to thank the Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE-UT) for providing institutional support for this project. I benefited greatly from the instruction and guidance of two inspiring academics, Professor Tara Goldstein, my thesis advisor and Associate Professor Ruben Gaztambide-Fernandez, my student advisor, who with their feedback, long hours of reading, editing and brainstorming, helped breathe life into this thesis from its infancy in 2013 to its maturity in 2016. Their feedback helped deepen my analysis and sharpen my argument so that stories of ‘open rescue’ remained integral to the overall theme of the project –the promotion of sentient empathy among the public.

Thirdly, I want to acknowledge and thank Irena Kohn for her diligent editing skills and the hours of hard work crafting the social justice education component of this project. By keeping me focused in the summer months, Ms. Kohn helped to shape an argument that had not yet revealed itself. Also, kudos go out to one of the most gifted formatters I have ever had the pleasure to work with – Megan McIntosh, who in one week helped to format the entire thesis while remaining positively engaged in her daily comments. I do not think I could have met the deadline without Ms. McIntosh’s consistent attention to detail and unflagging spirit. Thank you both. Finally, I want to acknowledge and thank my partner, Rhonda Costas, who never let me forget why animals need our help and empathy. Your guidance to, love of and excitement toward the completion of this project is a testament to our commitment to each other and to the cause of social justice. Amazing as always, RC!

iii Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgements ...... iii

Table of Contents ...... iv

List of Figures ...... viii

List of Appendices ...... ix

CHAPTER 1 ...... 1 Introduction: Purpose Statement ...... 1 Animal Testing: Statistics ...... 2 What are the Alternatives? ...... 3 Animal Experimentation: Out-dated and Unnecessary ...... 4 Devaluing Animal : Intrinsic Worth as the “good of its own” ...... 5 Hidden from View: Sentient Proximity Obstructed ...... 7 Transparency: Canadian Council on Animal Care ...... 9 Maligning an Activist Movement ...... 10 How and Why Do Human Beings Detach from Sentience? ...... 11 Enforced Marginalization: Reducing the Animal ...... 12 : Disengaging Sentience ...... 13 Empathy Deficit within Academia ...... 13 Empathy Deficit within Public Education ...... 14 Haraway: “Political and Scientific Emergency” ...... 15 Institutionalization of Speciesism ...... 16 Institutional Indoctrination ...... 18 as a Discourse ...... 18 External Inconsistency...... 20 Animal Testing: Deferring an Informed Debate ...... 23

iv Outline of the Thesis ...... 23

CHAPTER TWO...... 26 Holism and Feminist Care Theory ...... 26 ‘Open Rescue’: An Emotive and Subjective Response ...... 30 Bridging the Gap: Taylor and Signal’s “Empathy and Attitudes to Animals” ...... 33 Pedagogies that Imperil and Poison ...... 36 Unpatients: The Structural Violence of Animals in Medical Education ...... 37 ...... 38 Decentring Research: “the most vocal and the least vocal” ...... 39 Feminist Care Theory in ...... 40 Carol J. Adams: Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics ...... 41 PETA vs Open Rescue ...... 41 Resistance: Empathy Springs Eternal ...... 44 ‘Open Rescue’ Movement ...... 45 ‘Open Rescue’ versus Front ...... 46 Moral Theory of Animal Rights: Affirming ...... 48 Pepper Rescue: “Saving Lives and Changing Hearts” ...... 49

CHAPTER THREE ...... 51 Interview Findings...... 51 Theme 1: Behaviours...... 52 Behaviour: “I myself adopted the mice…” ...... 53 Behaviour: “Bearing Witness” ...... 54 Beyond Behaviour: Changes in ...... 56 Beyond Behaviour: To Do-No-Harm ...... 60 Discussion of Behaviour Theme: Attuning to Private Grief ...... 66 Discussion of Behaviour Theme: Respondents Take Action ...... 66 Theme 2: Language ...... 70 Language as a Fabric of Conjunctions: And, And and And ...... 71 Language of Empowerment: Sentient Beings Made Stronger and Confident ...... 74 Theme 3: Values and Beliefs ...... 77

v Beliefs: Moral Responsibility Absent of Extremism ...... 80 Values and Beliefs: Moral Responsibility ...... 85 Discussion of Values and Beliefs ...... 87

CHAPTER FOUR...... 89 Research Informed Theatre: What It Is? ...... 89 Research-Informed Theatre as a Critical Arts-Based Practice ...... 91 Research Informed Theatre as Holistic Practice ...... 93 Helene Vosters’ Impact Lab: Struggle ...... 94 Ethical Rationale: Sentimentalism and Moral Significance ...... 98 Values and Beliefs: as Non-Violence toward Animals ...... 100 Animals as Moral Agents ...... 101 RIT as Imaginative Reconstructions ...... 102 How Art May Inspire Subjective Interconnectivity ...... 103 Research-Informed Theatre as Shared Emotional Experience ...... 105 Animal Suffering: Artists Engage Emotions...... 106 Research-Informed Theatre as Transformative Research ...... 106 Gunkle: Empathy in the Arts ...... 108 Research Informed Theatre: “Breaking the Silence” ...... 108 Freire: “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” ...... 109 Breaking the Silence II: Instilling Complex Language and Empathetic Imagery ...... 110 Agitate, Unsettle, Criticize, and Challenge ...... 112 Apathy versus Ethical Engagement ...... 114 The Challenge of Social justice Education ...... 118 Sentient-friendly Pedagogy: Children and Animals ...... 119 Middle Class Aesthetics Enabling Sentience ...... 120 Example One: Activist Silence in Curriculum, Teaching and Learning ...... 121 Example Two: Educating Daughters ...... 121 Social Justice: Changing the Social Gaze ...... 122 Social Justice: Transforming Consciousness ...... 122 Promoting Identity and Culture ...... 123 Activism: Oppositional versus Transformative Space ...... 124

vi Freire: Education as Activism ...... 126 Taiaiake Alfred: Indigenous Political and Social Values ...... 129 Angela Singer: “A great infuriating joy” ...... 130

Glossary ...... 133

References ...... 136

APPENDIX A ...... 175

APPENDIX B ...... 180

APPENDIX C ...... 185

APPENDIX D ...... 196

APPENDIX E ...... 198

vii List of Figures

Figure 1: Critical Education Spiral Model (Change Agency, 2015) ...... 128

viii

List of Appendices

APPENDIX A ...... 175

APPENDIX B ...... 180

APPENDIX C ...... 185

APPENDIX D ...... 196

APPENDIX E ...... 198

ix

“Animals, including humans, are basically kind, empathic and compassionate beings....Goodness, kindness, empathy and compassion come naturally, and they allow us to do what needs to be done, whether healing our conflicts with other animals or among ourselves”

Marc Bekoff -The Animal Manifesto

“‘[C]an animals really act with compassion, , and empathy? The skeptics’ numbers are dwindling. More and more scientists who study animal behavior are becoming convinced that the answer is an unequivocal “Yes, animals really can act with compassion, altruism, and empathy.” Not only did Binti Jua [a female western lowland ] rescue the young boy, but she also liberated some of our colleagues from the grip of timeworn and outdated views of animals and opened the door for much-needed discussion about the cognitive and emotional lives of other animals.”

Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce - Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals

“…successful programs have been developed to teach children empathy and compassion for other living things. The more recent and often controversial views regarding the place of "values education" in schools brings renewed focus on the crucial and highly desirable goal for children to empathise with others. Central to values education is the teaching of empathy skills and many educators now view empathy as an essential component for successful learning.”

Jill Burgess – Empathy Central to Social, Emotional, and Academic Achievement

x

CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Purpose Statement

I open this thesis with a contextual argument against animal testing, detailing the amount of animal suffering that takes place on university campuses and the lack of awareness, related to animal testing among students and faculty. In order to address the apathy and indifference toward animal testing on university campuses, I interviewed three people who became animal activists through undertaking successful ‘open rescues’ of animals from university research facilities. Each ‘open rescue’ participant found the use of animals in research to be problematic, especially when proven alternatives refrain from harming or using animals in research.

From three interviews I conducted in 2013-14, my analysis details how each individual narrated their way through the ‘open rescue’ experience, employing language, behaviours, beliefs, and values that I believe could help educate students and faculty members about the treatment of animals in university laboratories and what can be done to reduce animal suffering. Additionally, I highlight how respondents came to animal activism and argue that their stories can motivate other people to mobilize to change interpretations of who is, and is not, worthy of life. I examine the possibilities of the arts-based methodology of Research Informed Theatre (RIT) to engage a wider audience to develop sentient empathy, which may help to end animal testing and liberate millions of animals confined within universities.

While protesting against animal testing at the University of Toronto (UT), I pondered another way to effectively inform the public about the treatment of animals in university laboratories. At the same time, I was fortunate to have enrolled in a UT graduate studies course entitled “Performed Ethnography & Research-Informed Theatre” taught by Professor Tara Goldstein. In conversation with Prof. Goldstein, I mentioned my interest in animal rights activism, particularly my research on the ‘open rescue’ movement. From my interviews with open rescuers, I was tentatively studying how to establish an on campus for animals liberated from research facilities.

1 2

Prof. Goldstein believed that the compelling social issue concerning animal testing was its invisibility on campus and that animal suffering could be highlighted in the larger community beyond the establishment of a safe-zone for animals. With ten inspiring words, Prof. Goldstein asserted, “Why don’t you transcribe your interviews into research informed scripts?” I was struck by the simplicity of her request, specifically, how arts-based research could inform and connect with people in their everyday lives by bringing the invisibility of animals and their suffering into the dramatic forum.

Animal Testing: Statistics

The continued subjugation of animals in universities is extensive and institutionally secluded. Animal testing takes place in ninety universities and colleges across Canada (CCAC. 2015a), including the University of Toronto (UT), where I am a graduate student. A Freedom of Information request obtained from the University of Toronto revealed that 90,000 animals were used in in 2010 – most of the animals were euthanized after test completion (University of Toronto Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Office, 2011).

In 2011, the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) reported that 3.3 million animals were used in science experiments in Canada (CCAC, 2015b). Global estimates confer 115 million animals are used in scientific research annually (Waldau, 2011). According to Cruelty Free International (CFI), over eighty percent of countries still permit testing on animals, including Canada, Korea, Japan, Australia, and the United States; the practice has been banned in , and Israel (Bird, 2013).

Contrastingly, alternatives to animal testing (that promote sentient subjectivity) are being made available to universities around the world. Yet, there are increasing numbers of transgenic mice and monkeys be used by vivisectors, that ultimately entrenches animal objectification in bio- .

3

What are the Alternatives?

Increasingly, alternative discourses are being utilized at many universities around the world which has transformed sentient materiality so that a non-animal science is becoming the research norm. Notwithstanding ‘open rescue’ as a valid response to , there are a wide variety of non-lethal research alternatives. Research testing that avoids vivisection includes: cell and tissue culture testing; synthetic membrane tests using EpiDerm (Balls, 2000); and embryonic stem cell research (Balls, 2002), which is fast becoming the norm in most US medical schools.

As well, new technologies like Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and sophisticated computer models (Lim, 2000) are having an impact on reducing the use of animals used in research laboratories. As well, the use of human skin, left over from surgical procedures, and advanced clinical investigations on human cadavers are alternatives that are more reliable than using mice or to mimic human .

Notably, ninety-five percent of medical schools across the United States have completely replaced the use of animals in medical training with non-lethal alternatives. The American Medical Student Association now states that it, "strongly encourages the replacement of animal laboratories with non-animal alternatives in undergraduate medical education" (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2012).

Part of this trend toward a humane science relates to the transformation of technology that is nurturing sentient materiality among researchers. Recently, the Indian government issued a report putting in-place and experimentation guidelines for animals; both Indian undergraduate and postgraduate students are now expected to use non-animal teaching methods. In 2012, the Indian government announced that non-animal teaching methods, such as computer simulations and manikins, were “not only effective and absolute replacements to the use of animals in teaching /physiology but they are also superior pedagogic tools in the teaching of Pharmacy/Life Sciences” (Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2011).

4

In order to inspire students to think outside the speciesist box, PETA India has teamed up with computer-maker Emantras, to offer free virtual dissection software to all Indian university students (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals India, 2014). Virtual discourse as a humane science, absent of speciesist materiality, can actually limit the amount of animals used in lethal experiments.

Animal Experimentation: Out-dated and Unnecessary

Science continues to cling to out-dated notions about human superiority where human beings, as conscious moral agents, are at the top of the sentient ladder. Other animals, on the bottom rungs of the ladder are categorized as lacking sentience, which can define the scope of and extermination awaiting them.

Behind laboratory doors, invasive test procedures on animals include: Carcinogenicity; Skin Sensitization; Toxicokinetics; Repeated Dose and Reproductive (Bird, 2013). The presumption that laboratory animal “models” are reasonably predictive of human outcomes is the basis for widespread animal experimentation, especially in clinical drug testing. These procedures endure despite guidelines from the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC 2015) that categorizes “the ethical use and care of animals in science,” and animal ethicist Frances M.C. Robinson’s (2013) conclusion that any animal used in scientific experimentation is “morally unacceptable,” describing the management of the system of animal experimentation as, “deeply flawed” (p. 156-157). To redress ‘do harm’ approaches in research, animal ethicist Erik Marcus (2005) calls for the “…dismantling [of] the intellectual superstructure that institutionalizes structural violence” (p. 220).

Correspondingly, the potentially harmful effects upon students, who inflict pain and death on animals, are invalidated through a culture of apathy and . The extreme of animal experiments within university laboratories promotes a general indifference to animal suffering that dominates community attitudes (O’Sullivan, 2011).

5

If social justice education is to challenge human supremacy over sentient forms of life, I believe a broader public must be informed about animal testing and how animal sentience is repressed, particularly our detachment from a holistic system of emotive interconnectivity that links us to sentient empathy. In his visionary tome, The Animal Manifesto, US biologist Marc Bekoff (2010) reveals that,

…longtime students of animal behavior, seem unsurprised that mice show empathy. What neither says outright but is implicit, is a more startling possibility: if animals share with humans the capacity for empathy, they have in place the cornerstone of what in human society we know as morality. For among humans, the capacity to understand what another feels allows us to be compassionate, to avoid causing pain or suffering, and to act with an intention to improve the welfare of those around us (p. 87).

Denying animal empathy is counter-intuitive to the mounting scientific evidence that animals actually display emotions, including empathy. I expand on relational links to sentience in Chapter Two, highlighting academic conversations that discuss shared-life interconnectivity among species which can counter the apathy surrounding animal testing.

Devaluing Animal Suffering: Intrinsic Worth as the “good of its own”

The potentially harmful effects upon students who conduct animal experiments are invalidated through a culture of apathy and appeasement. The extreme nature of animal experiments within university laboratories promotes a general indifference to animal suffering that dominates community attitudes (O’Sullivan, 2011). Yet, I hold to the notion that animals, as conscious, sentient beings, deserve the same rights protections and liberties as human beings. For example, when an animal reaches an “end-point” in research (where it is customary to kill the animal), adoption laws should be put in place to spare the life of that animal in order to get a second chance at life.

Nevertheless, even when credible research alternatives exist that could spare the lives of millions of animals, universities continue to uphold a vivisecting status quo where sentient

6

empathy is denied, particularly where bio-technology is involved. Moreover, Leiden University Professor Tjard de Cock Buning (1999) at the Faculty of Medicine argues that the development of the transgene has altered the concept of an animal’s intrinsic value. Where once our cultural heritage bestowed a reverence for life, current moral arguments about sentience may seem insignificant when the life expectancy of a transgenic mouse becomes considerably worse because scientists permanently alter its genetic information (de Cock Buning, 1999, p.137).

When genetic modification of animals mimics human , degrees of agency are radically altered. As a disposable species, the intrinsic value of mice is reduced when any inclination of their vulnerability (or concern of their unequal position in society) is made irrelevant. If an animal species is created to autonomously (i.e. a mouse bred with cancerous tumours) they cannot survive without provisions given by the researchers. The incompatibility of techno- scientists to fathom the intrinsic value of animals beyond testing and killing them, even to acknowledge the suffering of transgenic mice born with tumours, highlights the sentient divide, which ultimately devalues why animal suffering matters.

Ironically, the scientific necessity to kill animal’s for research is justified as being for the good of the animal. Dutch Officer J. Martje Fentener van Vlissingen (1999) explains the analogous reasoning why some animals deserve to die more than others,

[d]ecisions influencing the quality of life of animals kept for the purpose of research are made in a different way than those for most other domestic animals. To kill an animal humanely is often the best way to prevent any more discomfort to occur once the scientific end point is realized. Thus, to kill an animal is often done with its well- being in mind, in order to respect the “good of its own” (p. 130).

Again, a science based on speciesism reveals itself—even human beings on death-row are given the opportunity to argue against their execution based on the moral premise that human beings have intrinsic value and respective rights. Granted van Vlissingen’s (1999) “good of its own” application is sixteen years out of date given the advancement in non-lethal research practices but, even so, resistance to new research methods persists in most universities.

7

If one considers a re-valuing of sentient life to prevent harming animals, a holistic expression demands a more diverse interpretation of life (as opposed to “the good of the whole” analogy) in order to avoid that dualistic trap that categorizes sentience as those who do, and those who do not, have intrinsic value. I will elaborate further on arts-based, holistic caring practices in Chapters Three and Chapter Four.

Whether it is academic resistance to new technologies or student apathy to “the good of the whole” discourse that defines a positivist science, there does not appear to be a groundswell of internal opposition within Canadian universities to hegemonic power that condones animal testing. Many tenured track professors at the University of Toronto conform to the indoctrinating conditions that repress dissenting views on campus. Addressing the limits of academic freedom, Steven Salaita (2015) confirms that critics who take on elite power discourses (like the genetic modification of animals for scientific research) are treated with nothing but contempt. But as Salaita (2015) enthuses in a recent radio interview, critics of university policy must “punch back” since those dissenters will, “be surprised at the universities reaction” to a renewed commitment to free speech, pluralism and a rigorous systemic critique of official policy (Click: http://www.alternativeradio.org/collections/spk_steven-salaita/products/sals002). Not only is it imperative that space be given to critics, like myself, to broaden the parameters of debate concerning animal testing, but as mentors to the next generation of researchers, academics must also be empowered to challenge centuries –old discourses that limit intellectual freedom that provide little-to no accountability to ‘research’ animals, who as objects of do-harm research, are confined within impenetrable spaces absent of public scrutiny.

Hidden from View: Sentient Proximity Obstructed

When confronting the lack of awareness of animal testing at University of Toronto laboratories, institutional, intellectual and spatial mechanisms prevent us from even recognizing the physical spaces where animals are held. Research facilities are not easily identifiable and their presence is not advertised to the general public. In fact, residents may not even be aware that a research laboratory may be in their neighbourhood. As an inspector of research facilities, Siobhan 8

O’Sullivan (2011) explains that animal laboratories tend to be regular buildings in universities or office blocks where “they are invariably secure rooms or buildings requiring at least one set of keys to enter….facilities tend to be occupied by small numbers of people, meaning the presence of an unknown person during business hours would be likely to attract attention” (p. 84).

Added to the invisibility of animal laboratories, the lack of public concern and skepticism concerning animal welfare –even among those who you might expect to empathize with animal suffering – reinforces my view that very few people are aware of what is happening on the UT campus. The only people to have direct contact with the animals are researchers, laboratory technicians, or the faculty’s governing body. Indeed, O’Sullivan (2011) notes that even though animal testing is the only remaining outlet for direct exposure to ‘research’ animals, access to facilities is more restricted now than it was twenty years ago (p. 80 -81). In fact, data on the number of animals used in animal experiments is difficult to obtain by animal advocates since institutions like universities selectively publish statistics through Freedom of Information requests which are still subject to institutional confidentiality. By law, US universities must disclose the number of animals used in experiments whereas Canada has no such regulation, making public scrutiny that much harder to establish.

Queen’s Animal Defence and Institutional Opacity

As a member of Queens University Animal Defence, located in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, Zipporah Weisberg cannot confirm how many animals are confined in Queen’s University (QU) laboratories or even the type of experiments researchers conduct on animals since the university refuses to release statistics to the public (Animal Voices, 2015). A Freedom of Information request was submitted by students to QU to release records on all animal research experiments including details of the species types and invasiveness categories. The request was rejected by university officials.

Concerned QU students are asking for a statistical reporting system that would further public awareness and transparency concerning animal experiments which is often denied by Canadian universities in order to protect either the safety of research staff or their commercial interests 9

(O’Sullivan. 2011). In a recent CIUT-FM radio interview (Animal Voices. 2015), Weisburg revealed that QU administrators also denied several student requests to introduce a formal adoption program for animals in QU labs, similar to the formal adoption program implemented by the Chief at the University of Guelph. Recently, an adjudicator has been appointed to settle the dispute (Sobel 2015).

Transparency: Canadian Council on Animal Care

General indifference to animal suffering still persists as a small number of activists try to inform a larger public about the magnitude of animal deaths on university campuses. Since the general public rarely reads academic journals on animal tests and experimenters rarely communicate publicly about the suffering they inflict upon animals, O’Sullivan (2011) argues that research facilities are ”closed to public scrutiny” (p. 76).

As a self-serving, quasi- regulatory body, the Canadian Council on Animal Care’s (CCAC) accountability model (described as the three R’s tenet -Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) guides the so-called ethical use of animals in science. But CCAC officials also reveal a conditional agenda as pro vivisection members hold most of the CCAC board positions (CCAC 2015). Failing to account for sentient empathy ensures that CCAC’s technocratic requirements concerning “quality” research on animal bodies is not only maintained, but it is to be expanded upon (Canadian Social Research, 2012; Catholic Principals’ Council of Ontario, 2012). In doing so, CCAC officials uphold a ‘speciesist model’ where rights are attached conditionally to sentient bodies based on the subjective levels of harm meted out by the researchers it voluntarily oversees (CCAC, 2015). Quite often, Animal Ethics committees [AECs] which approve experiments conduct their meetings in secret and members of the public cannot even obtain copies of the agendas or minutes of their meetings - much less the details of the experiments or the reasons experiments were approved. The public cannot even find out who are members of Animal Ethics committees – even those members who are supposed to be representing the public (Kedgley 2002). Thus, the current level of accountability is inequitable to the level of animal 10

suffering meted out by researchers and is a testament to the lack of protection offered to animals inside university laboratories.

In a conference convened by the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART, 2003), delegates agreed that balanced information, annual statistics, increased transparency of animal experiments and ethical oversight by regulatory bodies would be of “value to the public” (n.p.).

Even though I was successful in obtaining a Freedom of Information file detailing UT animal experiments conducted in 2011, gaining information about sentience that is related to inter- species empathy remains elusive, which may explain why the visibility of animal suffering on campus is surprisingly low. Similar to CCAC motives, the history of ethics committees in Australia is one of varying levels of success and failure, with some committees acting merely as a façade to keep authorities and the community at bay (Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare, 1989).

Maligning an Activist Movement

Obstinacy toward increasing public scrutiny of animal experiments combined with criticism of animal rights activists (as having views of animals not based on scientific ‘fact’), lends credence to a speciesist-based science that trivializes animal protection. Science researchers aligned with media outlets portray animal welfare adherents as ineffectual, morally extreme or worse, as an eco-terrorist movement that harms human beings (Jasper & Nelkin, 1992; Shapiro, 1994). Indeed, Susan Sperling (1988) compares the early Victorian anti-vivisectionist movement to today’s animal rights ‘crusaders’ whose concern for animal suffering symbolize a larger evangelical agenda. To this I would ask: How does rescuing an animal and finding it safe shelter (as proposed by the University of Guelph’s Chief Veterinarian) become ascribed to a fundamentalist sub-group who threaten to devolve scientific ‘research’?

When institutional transparency becomes merely a façade to mask the visibility of animals being killed in curiosity-driven experiments, segments of the will adopt 11 symbolic representations of animals as martyred individuals. Thus, an emotive response takes precedence over an unattainable administrative one. In a passage entitled “Animal Liberators Are Not Anti-Science”, Charles Magel (1990) offers a counter-argument to such puritan devaluation, criticizing pundits who ignore the urgent call of animal suffering. Indeed, Magel suggests that pundits ignore “the essential nature of the animal rights movement” and the fact that the animal rights movement does not see animals as symbols of something else, but that “the animal rights movement is concerned about the animals themselves” (p. 204, author’s italics). Even though Magel values the ultimate objectives of animal activists, defending an emotive link that champions an ethic-of-care for animals should not be undersold by critics who malign animal lovers as religious extremists.

How and Why Do Human Beings Detach from Sentience?

In citing Rene Descartes “Discourse on Methods” (1637), Tulane University graduate student Jeff Thomas (2013) notes how the esteemed philosopher negated sentience, describing animals as "soulless automata" and "beast machines”. How is it that after 378 years, the marginalization of sentient beings, as absent referents, continues to be the dominant discourse within scientific research?

As I will explain, the institutionalization of a speciesist ideology dictates how and why researchers can harm animals over such a long period of time. Exceedingly, historical inequality towards other animals creates generations of disaffected people (“I don’t care…” or “I don’t want to know…”) that empowers a dominant discourse without ever challenging it. The persuasiveness of speciesist arguments confounds the public, tempering criticism of animal experimentation. Even when non-lethal alternatives are available to researchers, vivisectors dismiss these methods citing research efficacy that claims non-human animals are better at mimicking human physiology.

Within the discourse of the status quo, vivisectors maintain that animal testing has enabled the development of numerous life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, and that regulatory councils strictly govern experimental procedures so as not to cause an animal undue 12

pain. Contrastingly, my research sheds light on institutional practices that enforce the marginalization of sentient beings, which intentionally ensures the predominance of disease pathology. Inevitably, external inconsistencies concerning animal testing helps maintain a sentient divide between humans and other animals. Social justice education counters a speciesist discourse, by informing the reader/viewer of structural mechanisms that institutionalize harm practices toward animals so they can decide and advocate for best practices within research.

Enforced Marginalization: Reducing the Animal

A structural mechanism that institutionalizes harm toward animals and its invisibility among the general public is the enforced marginalization of species groups. In About Looking, John Berger (2009) describes the marginalization of sentient beings as a reduction of the animal. Theoretical concepts of economic history reduce animals, including human beings, to isolated productive units within totalitarian capitalism. Berger (2009) argues that animals, as objects of our ever- extending knowledge, become less visible as we over-rationalize species. He states, “[w]hat we know about them [animals] is an index of our power, and thus an index of what separates us from them. The more we know, the further away they are” (p.13).

From public to research laboratories, animals exist in sites of enforced marginalization. As a critical response to structural distancing, Research Informed Theatre (RIT) scripts that I carved out of ‘open rescue’ interviews (discussed in Chapter 4) respond as social justice art education by bringing us politically and creatively closer to sites of oppression where animal sentience is systematically detached from our consciousness. Kincholoe (2005) argues that a critical lens that focuses on speciesist injustice has, [the] ability to step back from the world as we are accustomed to perceiving it and to see the ways our perception is constructed via linguistic codes, cultural signs, race, class, gender… and other hidden modes of power (p. 11).

Because language removes us from sentience, our behaviour reflects the disaffection we feel towards animals. 13

Animal Studies: Disengaging Sentience

Within mainstream academia a profound disengagement of sentience occurs, which reduces animals to reified signs, symbols, images, words on a page, or protagonists in a historical drama (ICAS 2015). Best et al (2007) argue that when animals are viewed inside a textual lens, researchers, particularly in Animal Studies and the Medical Sciences, fail to observe sentience beyond rationalized experiments where animals, as models, “live and die in the most sadistic, barbaric, and wretched cages of techno-hell that humanity has been able to devise… the better to exploit them for all they are worth (p.1).”

In a plea to educators and researchers, Richard Ryder (1971) evokes the term “speciesism” to ethically challenge current teaching practices where animals are exploited for science. In drawing parallels with the terms racism and sexism, Ryder suggests that all such prejudices are based upon physical differences that are morally irrelevant. Additionally, Ryder asserts that the moral implication of Darwinism illustrate why all sentient animals, including humans, should have a similar moral status. Detailing the denial of speciesist oppression, Emmanuel Bernstein (1987), founder of for the Ethical Treatment of Animals writes,

…I still find that animals are among the last of our “minority groups” because so little effective action is occurring to protect any but humans from massive amounts of suffering such as occur in the laboratory… and a hundred other ways that animals are painfully exploited….It can be so much healthier to deny, to rationalize, and be unaware of suffering in sentient beings. Ethics can be a real pain. Empathy and ethics court conflicts and confusion (p.156).

My research confirms the silence surrounding animal suffering within universities and with this silence comes an empathy deficit of significant proportion.

Empathy Deficit within Academia

While completing my graduate research at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE- UT), I noticed a lack of awareness among my teaching colleagues about animal testing. When I

14

investigated this empathy deficit within academia, I discovered a puzzling scarcity of research and rigour on the matter. Attempts to discern empathy for animals in medical journals revealed little more than a wall of silence. Contrastingly, nearly 10,000 articles in the PubMed database discussed physician empathy toward human patients (Poirier, 2009).

US clinical psychologist Ken Shapiro, founder of Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, alludes to a dynamic of acculturation that condones animal suffering. According to Piaget's child development theory, all human beings pass through an "animism phase" but then proceed to a stage to become "socialized to insensitivity" (Bernstein, 1987, p. 151). Subsequently, some human beings continue in this phase, while others regain their sensitivity to animals' feelings. The nature of this re-sensitizing process is a crucial question in my research, I ask: Can a conceptual awareness of animal testing in our schools elicit sentient empathy among a wider public? Could a re-sensitization to an animal’s plight among research students and educators lessen the amount of harm and suffering inflicted upon other animals as we learn to empathize with their suffering? Before these questions can be addressed, I will detail the institutional constraints that desensitize students and educators from empathizing with animals.

Empathy Deficit within Public Education

Remarking on the silence surrounding sentient empathy, UK education researcher Bridget Cooper (2004) argues that the education system is set up to subvert a teacher’s natural instinct to empathize, ultimately affecting his/her moral competence. Cooper points out that those institutional constraints on empathy are dictated by “economic and competitive” notions, which impinge on the teachers’ behaviour. Ultimately, Cooper (2004) reasons that educators are prevented from treating others in a “profoundly empathic way" (p. 21).

In fact, Cooper (2004) believes the factors that reduce empathy in primary and secondary schools can also be found in universities where faculties perpetuate an uncaring speciesist order that maintain restrictions in the so-called ‘caring’ services” (p. 21). In her conclusion, Cooper contends that in order to improve the academic, moral and social development of future

15

generations, educators must raise awareness about empathy and radically alter the contexts in which care work is done.

Haraway: “Political and Scientific Emergency”

In opposing the patenting of genetic material (I.e. as a transgenic model), US biologist and feminist cultural theorist Donna Haraway (1997) does not entirely dismiss activists concerns about an uncaring techno-science especially when, “genetic science and politics are at the heart of critical struggles for equality, democracy and sustainable life (p. 63).” Calling the global commodification of genetic resources a political and scientific emergency, Haraway (1997) confirms the serious concerns of animal activists, who warn that mixing and matching the of mice like they are raw material for redesign, violates the natural integrity of animals as it transgresses species barriers (p. 60). Listing an array of activist concerns about animals in research particularly indigenous concerns regarding biotechnological practices, Haraway (1997) notes these warnings:

Increasing capital concentration and the monopolization of the means of life, reproduction, and labor; appropriation of the commons of biological inheritance as the private preserve of corporations; the global deepening of inequality by region, nation, race, gender, and class; erosion of indigenous peoples’ self-determination and sovereignty in regions designated as biodiverse while indigenous bodies become the object of intense prospecting and proprietary development; inadequately assessed and potentially dire environmental and health consequences; misplaced priorities for technoscientific investment funds; propagation of distorted and simplistic scientific explanations, such as genetic determinism; intensified cruelty to and domination over animals; depletion of biodiversity; and the undermining of established practices of human and nonhuman life, culture, and production without engaging those most affected in democratic decision-making (p. 60-61).

With so many mounting concerns about biotechnological motives, why would techno-scientists and their institutional administrators refuse to expand the sentient debate to include empathy as a knowledge-producing practice that sustains life rather than denies it? Quite possibly, the discourse of the body resists a powerful emotive connection to sentient beings in order that techno-scientists maintain species barriers for power, profit and control of genetic resources.

16

I draw the reader’s attention to Haraway’s last four concerns in order to reiterate why the scientific community is unwilling to even contemplate the presence of sentient empathy among animals. If the concepts of a positivist science are to be deemed ‘natural’ and ‘evidentiary’, the history of nonhuman sentience must be erased in favor of human-centered material values. To question university researchers is to question a speciesist about what we must learn to accept: scientists must kill an Oncomouse – an animal genetically bred with breast - so that one day such cancer prevention research will save lives – possibly your life, your sister’s life, or your mother’s life. Thus, it is human beings that need to be saved (somewhat like a Christian crusade) from the ravages of cancer, and it is techno-science, as speciesist interventionists, that shape the discourse of the body so that cancer prevention, as a disease pathology, never empathizes with the infected animal. If Haraway (1997) confirms biology as “a discourse of the body” (p.217) that demands a detached objectivity to study human diseases, student-activists and their allies will find it increasingly difficult to penetrate the corridors of techno-science to spotlight the subjective and emotive qualities of animals.

In arguing for the non-property status of animals, Thomas G. Kelch (2007) expands upon feminist care principles to include the moral value of animals, based on “compassion, sympathy and other emotions that lie deep inside us (p. 156).” If we merely follow the criticisms of science from a scientist’s perspective, empathy for animals inevitably gets short shrift. Thus, a critique of human domination of the natural world is denied when carers of animals are deemed ‘emotional’, ‘irrational’ and subjectively ‘misguided’ by the very researchers who kill animals with impunity. Even though animal rights has become a mainstream concern and reflects the social fabric of a ‘caring’ society, moral thought has not taken hold in certain Canadian academic circles, specifically medical and veterinary sciences. A full discussion on feminist care principles appears in Chapter 2.

Institutionalization of Speciesism

The ‘open rescue’ of animals from certain death is a remarkable phenomenon, given the extremity as well as the secrecy behind animal experimentation in university laboratories where

17

doors are shuttered and research facilities concealed. Personal discussions about animal testing among OISE/UT activist-educators who were involved in anti-oppressive struggles, brought either blank stares or a belief that sentient solidarity stopped at the end of a fork or within mouse traps where rodents could no longer harm us. (2009) confirms that animal suffering is socially perpetuated through dominant intellectual paradigms and by an entrenched phenomenon of “institutionalization” that is highly developed.

From his book, Why Animal Suffering Matters, Linzey (2009) describes four distinct forms of institutionalization that entrench animal suffering. First, the power of misdescription which institutionalizes language in order to create an artificial distance between humans and animals using pejorative terms, like “dumb brutes”, “sub-humans” and “wild beasts,” to describe and historically denigrate animals. Second, the power of misrepresentation within scientific and religious theory which disregards the pain of animals using Cartesian and behaviourist perceptions of animals as unthinking, non-rational organisms bereft of sentience and subjectivity. Third, the power of misdirection which institutionalizes the way in which animal suffering is either minimized or its moral significance significantly maligned by academics and government officials. Lastly, the power of misperception which denies the intrinsic value of animals so that they are merely objects, machines, tools, and resource commodities to be exploited for personal gain (p. 70-71).

We, as a human species detached from animality, have a vested self interest in maintaining animal experimentation within Canadian universities. Linzey (2009) argues that the scale of the animal exploitation industry clearly illuminates why human beings do not care about animal suffering as they have a “…colossal investment in not changing because of the benefits that result from their exploitation (p. 71).” Linzey (2009) describes the despair that comes from upholding these less-than-honourable motives,

[t]he reason that it is often so difficult to get a serious hearing for animals is because, unlike many other ethical issues, humans not unnaturally suspect granting animals moral solicitude will involve major changes to their lifestyles. It is understandable that some people will view this indebtedness and conclude that humans are simply incapable of making the necessary changes if animals are to be treated properly.

18

There is a silent despair about the possibility of moral change that informs a resignation to much abuse and suffering-and not only that of animals (p. 57).

Even though academic researchers and students are resigned to killing animals, no one is untouched by animal suffering, as we directly or indirectly benefit from it. The use of animals for research has become a burgeoning business, legitimized by government administrators, academic faculty heads, corporate boards, research councils, lobby groups and animal handlers who operate on a global scale.

Institutional Indoctrination

Human indifference toward animal suffering correlates to the amount of institutional indoctrination imprinted upon human beings. Using a Chomsky an analysis, Linzey (2009) describes how the use of thought control reinforces dominant ideologies concerning animals,

Few institutions are morally neutral as regards animals because they reflect and reinforce past attitudes….The view that animals are little more than lumps of meat has historically dominated ethical discourse [remaining unchanged] because of the benefits that result from exploitation….That means we are never able to decide our actions from a position of impartiality…as if we were encountering an entirely new moral problem for the first time. Rather, we find that the issue has already been determined for us, and by the time we begin thinking (if we do), we find that we are already compromised by our existing involvement (p. 71-72)

Linzey (2009) further urges us to “learn how facts are misrepresented” and identify the “underlying perspective that [these] distortions serve”, so that we can enter into an ethical analysis that challenges staid ideologies (p. 72). Essential to the testing and is an over-reliance by vivisectors on a discourse of disease pathology.

Disease Pathology as a Discourse

Another structural mechanism that institutionalizes harm toward animals (and the invisibility of their suffering) is the predominance of disease pathology in Western science. The shift in medical language in the nineteenth century established pathological anatomy as a spatial indicator of death so that a diseased body became the principal indicator of life in physiological

19

research. In his Physiological on Life and Death (1800) French anatomist Xavier Bichat explains that the definition of life consisted of,”…the sum of the functions, by which death is resisted (n.p.).” A pathologized discourse of medico-science changed the very configuration of bodies using the notion of harm as a materializing structural standard.

The social construction of animals in the laboratory begins as a philosophical construct of science underlying bio-medical positivism, wherein experimental investigation and observation becomes the only sources of substantive knowledge. Subsequently, the positivist language of medical discourse materializes sentience where bodies are sanctioned as sites of various discursive regimes. This is done when animal bodies are rationalized as unnatural. Thus, ‘chosen’ students can find ways to master the ‘fundamentals’ of animal testing in the laboratory, sans compassion or empathy.

In her book Philosophy, Animality and the Life Sciences, Wahida Khandker (2014) contends that medical theory is mired in dated conceptions of pathology, so that death itself is not seen as a negative value but as a systematic basis for the study of living processes. In the chapter entitled, “Pathological Life and the Limits of Medical Perception”, Khandker (2014) describes current medicine as the art of managing pathological life. For example, researchers and doctors perceive and pathologize life from the perspective of medical efforts to avoid and/or conquer diseases like cancer, heart attacks and . Animals, like the symbolic , become the breeding ground of an ‘anatomo-clinical method’ of medical research—animals become living components of the absolute visibility of disease pathology. In this way, researchers kill a mouse to study the ‘lesional occurrences’ (condition of the organs at death); they then observe the signs of a diseases progress (particular tissue types displaying various stages of degeneration). And finally, researchers analyse the probability of how frequent (or less frequent) the disease will occur in other animals. By yielding to the categorization of ‘disease as life,’ French social theorist Michel Foucault (1989) argues that concepts of pathological life omit metaphysical unity so that sentient empathy, as an abstract, speculative hypothesis, becomes meaningless. Hidden from medical or public perception, Foucault (1989) describes how disease pathology inscribes life through the study of death, absent of sentient meaning,

20

Spatialised in the organism in accordance with their own lines and areas, pathological phenomena take on the appearance of living processes. This has two consequences: disease is hooked onto life itself, feeding on it….It is no longer an event or a nature imported from the outside; it is life undergoing modification in an inflected functioning (p. 188).

Foucault seems to encapsulate the sense of distance between human and non-human animals, particularly the value placed on the “artificial inducement of pathological states in animals” as Khandker (2014) illuminates and which occurs for the purposes of disease research.

In his book, The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments, Andrew Knight (2011) reveals that poor specificity greatly limits the positive predictivity of animal testing. I am reminded of Foucault’s (1989) “inflected functioning” (p. 188) when researchers use the physiology of tumour-bred mice to cure in human beings. Ironically, we have helped to cure cancer in mice but not in human beings. Thus, the denigration of animal lives, or what Canguilhem (1991) calls the ‘devitalisation of life’ can now be traced to a set of mapping functions that express a genetic blueprint or some sure-fire process to cure heart disease or breast cancer governed by inflexible scientific laws. In detailing how science constructs deficient bodies as objects, Lock and Farquhar (2007) assert that a medicalizing process,

…highlights the way in which politics – notably the interests of pharmaceutical companies and in some cases the medical profession – has permitted conditions and syndromes…to flourish and become widely understood by the public as incontestable biological facts (p. 436)

By rejecting a positivist science that deviates toward disease , I distract individuals from the ‘physician’s gaze’, in order to deconstruct what is made invisible so that animals can be viewed empathetically among a wider public.

External Inconsistency

O’Sullivan (2011) argues that external inconsistencies manifest when ideological and institutional mechanisms act to ensure that human interests are served in significantly different ways compared to other animals. So when vivisectors conduct tests that injure and kill animals in order to establish whether a drug is safe, human research subjects are not treated in the same way

21

as their caged counterparts – their lives are spared. Contrastingly, non-human animals endure immense suffering as they are devoid of consensual authority to either testing or avoid being killed. The use of external inconsistencies, as a speciesist structural mechanism, institutionalizes harm toward animals and ensures their invisibility inside university laboratories.

As a member of the UT Animal Rights Club, I observed external inconsistency on a campus- wide level. For example, hundreds of intelligent, well-meaning students and staff disregarded brochures to end animal testing at the University of Toronto. In fact, during weekly vigils against animal testing, I observed students become defensive and upset at our presence outside the Medical Science buildings on campus. US biologist Donna Haraway (2008) reminds us that external inconsistency fuels human indifference toward certain animals. Similar to clinical trials to which humans are subjected, animals as, “working subjects, not just worked objects” become institutional instruments with which research is done (Haraway, 2008, p. 80). Even though animals are our fellow labourers, albeit labourers who are not engaged in an exclusively human form of labour, we still treat humans based on one non-lethal standard and animals based on another lethal standard.

For example, veterinary students learn surgical skills by performing unnecessary on research dogs, until they are used in termination surgeries that end their lives (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013). Yet, medical students graduate without intentionally killing a single human patient – the external inconsistency provides weaker legal protections for ‘research’ animals because the so-called benefits to veterinary science outweigh an academic defence against harming animals (O’Sullivan, 2011, p.10). Such peer ignorance or what Knight (2011) terms the “development of desensitization-related phenomena” in students is, “a psychological that enables previously caring students to withstand what would otherwise be intolerable psychological stress…” (p. 73).

Given such human disregard for animals, I am reminded of Martin Luther King Jr’s. discerning words: injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, which may address the paradoxical inconsistency surrounding animal suffering in university laboratories. The paradoxical nature of animal testing submits to harming animals for the benefit of humankind. Yet, students who

22

conduct animal experiments are also harmed in the process of trying to alleviate pain in human beings. After veterinary students conducted non-recovery on healthy animals, an ‘open rescue’ respondent acknowledged the tremendous harm that was being done to both human and non-human animals. The respondent, who rescued a small from a university research facility, noted that animal surgeries caused harm to students because it gradually desensitized them to the suffering of animals (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013).

US psychologist Emmanuel Bernstein (1987) gives a blunt assessment of those researchers, who desensitize students by teaching them to excise sentience from research. Bernstein suggests that “[a] well-published animal researcher…will teach… students to engage in cold, narrow experiments that attempt to separate and even negate sentience as unreal, even as they act upon the of sentience (rather than relating with it)” (p. 156). Bernstein (1987) further explains how a student’s moral concern for the animal is corrupted within a rationalized, speciesist pedagogy, “…so detached [of sentience] that the being can no longer be seen as a real, live, feeling being; it becomes for them an object quite different from itself” (p. 156). Finally, Bernstein (1987) warns us about the legacy of harm done to both human and non-human animals,

I find that this kind of callousness from scientists…spreads easily. Those who separate feelings from their subjects and have learned not to see emotional factors are dangerous to others….[but] if people realized that everyone they met or heard of were fighting a battle with pain, if we learned truly to empathize, we could not help understanding each other (p. 156).

Additionally, when “dangerous” vivisectors repress sentience within universities, the case for social justice for ‘research’ animals is conveniently censured. This ‘chilling’ effect concerning the merits of animal testing and its impact on sentience is intentional. Social justice education is made irrelevant, which would in fact reveal how the indoctrinating practice of positivist science pits reason over sentience, so that empathy for animals (never-mind love of animals) is entirely negated. As I shall detail, the enforced marginalization of animal rights and animal welfare issues requires transformative activism that can penetrate the wall of institutional indifference and apathy commonly found on North American university and college campuses.

23

Animal Testing: Deferring an Informed Debate

As a social justice issue, there has been minimal response from faculty and students at the University of Toronto (UT) to animal rights campaigns and protests demanding an end to animal testing. In contrast, when analyzing ‘open rescue’ transcripts, respondents reveal remarkable moments of sentient awareness based on each animal’s ability to transmute happiness, love, empathy and forgiveness. Beyond cognitive pain categories sanctioned by quasi-regulatory agencies, the justification for killing animals for research decreases exponentially when metaphysical concepts of life (like mice as a sentient social group that have moral values) actually mirror and, at times, surpass human sentient capacity. This may explain why medical researchers refrain from examining the social construction of sentience, paying scant attention to the subjective experience and ethical dimensions of distress that they inflict upon sentient beings. Hence, researchers intentionally defer an informed debate on sentience so as not to advance a case for social justice for ‘research’ animals within the academic community.

Institutional speciesist mechanisms maintain a distance between species groups which limits a space of resistance. I believe that students and staff are not invested in animal activism since it does not capture their attention or register as an important social justice issue. Noon-hour protests revealed that faculty administrators and students, particularly in the medical and veterinary sciences, were combative to imposing a moratorium on animal testing, holding onto external inconsistencies, a disease pathology and enforced marginalization that suppressed an empathetic response to animal suffering on campus. Fortunately, testimonies of ‘open rescue’, featured in Chapter 3, provide a space of resistance for the broader public to question vivisection, especially when ‘open rescue’ respondents provide a counter-narrative that affirms life.

Outline of the Thesis

In this chapter, I presented arguments against animal testing, detailing the amount of animal suffering that takes place on university campuses and its lack of awareness among students and faculty. I describe non-lethal alternatives to animal testing and I detailed how researchers

24

continue to uphold a centuries old discourse that rationalizes harming animals for medical science. At the University of Toronto where I am graduate student, I revealed institutional walls of complacency that must be challenged in order to make animal suffering more visible.

In order to elicit sentient empathy among a wider public audience, I will elaborate on my conceptual frameworks and research methodology in Chapter Two. Specifically, I focus on key concepts for the reader to understand, such as the concept of power through speciesism; the concept of sentient empathy; and the concept of murder and how murdering animals is rationalized by vivisectors. Evidence of the development of sentient empathy and its importance in stopping the murder of animals will also be examined. Chapter Two also includes a literature review which examines the proliferating discourses of animal liberation found in Critical Animal Studies (CAS) and in feminist care theory. To aid my exploration of the possibilities of RIT, I delve into current theoretical constructs concerning empathy deficits, citing Nicola Taylor and Tania Signal’s (2005) findings on human-human directed empathy. To lend added weight to ethical concerns about animal testing, I explore Jeff Thomas’ (2013) study on the institutionalization of violence toward animals.

In Chapter Three, I introduce the reader to three people who became animal activists by successfully undertaking ‘open rescues’ of animals from university research facilities. I analyze the data from my three interviews with ‘open rescue’ activists and explain my pedagogical rationale for taking interview transcripts and developing them into Research-Informed Theatre scripts. Additionally, I examine how qualitative research changes when it is put into an entirely different convention.

In Chapter Four, I introduce the possibility of using theatre arts as a form of social justice education to inform audiences about animal testing on university campuses. I also explain how, by modifying ‘open rescue’ testimonials into dramatic scripts, I hope to encourage audiences to begin to empathize with ‘research’ animals, making deeper emotive connections to animal suffering. I address how and why research-informed theatre, as a component of social justice education, may help activate the minds and hearts of people previously unconcerned with animal suffering on university campuses. I expand on the analytic process of developing ethnographic

25

scripts, and focus on some of the reasons why I transcribed ‘open rescue’ interviews into story plays. I am interested in examining how a thesis project on sentient empathy could reach a larger audience. Can the use of dramatic script(s) make academic writing more accessible to the general public and stir an emotive response to animal testing on campus? Finally, I conclude this chapter by discussing the implications of my research, and next steps.

My Appendices includes three short plays that dramatize the ‘open rescue’ of animals from university research facilities: Play One: Ethnographic Monologue: Interview with Rita Shresthowser; Play Two: Ethnographic Monologue: Jana’s Open Rescue at Ryder University; and Play Three: Performed Ethnographic Interview – Skype Call with Pat. I also include my reflections on moving interview data into the play-script.

CHAPTER TWO

“Students, if your university or college tries to force you to dissect animals or conducts experiments for the purpose of training, please write to [email protected]. We will work to help you stop it” (PETA 2014).

The literature review in this chapter examines holism in relation to advances in feminist care theory (Donovan & Adams, 2013). Specifically, I discuss a care theory that makes transformative links with “the different voices” of animals (p. 19) in order to affirm sentient connections to ‘the whole’. I also refer to Nicola Taylor and Tania Signal’s (2005) findings on empathy deficits and related anti-social behaviors, furthering an emotive response to animal testing. Lastly, I cite ethical deliberations from the Journal for Critical Animal Studies (Thomas, 2013) that allude to incidences of institutionalized violence in medical schools.

Holism and Feminist Care Theory

Instead of a static view of nature that posits one species (as winners) dominating a ‘lesser’ species (as losers), a holistic view gives moral preference to ‘lesser’ animals in order to reconnect them to “the whole.” In other words, a holistic understanding of life as systemic and interconnected counters a linear and hierarchal view of the natural world that views the planet in parts to be exploited from the whole.

As a holistic tool, the possible evocative power of Research-Informed Theatre (RIT) may enable bodies to get closer to “the whole” which affects consciousness and empowers political change. In Caring about Suffering, Carol J. Adams (1996) contends that when individuals, particularly men, abandon a discourse that rationalizes harming animals, it relieves them of the burden of shame, guilt and anger that is deeply engrained in their consciousness. In fact, getting closer to animals allows individuals to express emotions like care and love for animals, which is “an appropriate for activism” (Adams, 1996, p. 216). Hence, the individual finds identity in a whole society where communities find just cause to end subjugation of sentient groups, which lessons the burden of an oppressor consciousness. Continuing along this care theory

26

27

spectrum, Donovan (2013) argues that in heeding to “the different voice” of animals1 , communities gaze onto animals in distress – we pay attention to that form of communication so that it morally and politically registers as “sufficiently significant” (p. 19).

Qualitative narratives about animal liberation defy sentient divisions as they unify sentient groups; moral and political thought about sentience becomes an extension of our reality not separate from our worldview. Instead of viewing animals as dispensable “models” in experiments, ‘open rescue’ scripts add moral weight as to why we should empathize with animal suffering. The harm done to animals in laboratories and their requisite liberation, gives audiences a holistic view of animal subjectivity. This is evidenced from research transcripts, where respondents reclaim the body from a harm discourse and reconnect with the larger whole, which can affect social change. From this, each scripted character I created in the RIT scripts (“Rita Shresthowser”; “Jana”; and “Pat”) conceives of rescuing animals (and those awaiting rescue) as indispensable beings within a larger framework of sentient existence – animals are deserving of freedom from harm just like us.

When researchers use theatre to investigate a particular aspect of the human condition it is viewed through a holistic lens that makes connections to the larger society. Thus, the individual is interconnected as part of the whole community – the sum of subjective parts is not greater than the organic whole. From a moral perspective, one cannot deny sentience to a (or any other ‘research’ animal) as it would deny sentience to all living creatures within the natural world. By changing the frames of reference used by vivisectors, who detach the animal from the sentient community, ‘open rescue’ scripts engage in intersubjective relationships, where empathy for and love of other animals attunes us to that sentient “whole.”

In arguing for a valuation of “the whole,” eco feminist (2007) is adamant that activists refrain from further hierarchal categorizations that devalue the individual,

1 Donovan provides several excellent articles on animal ethics, including “Animal Rights and ” (1990), “Attention to Suffering” (1996), and “ and the Treatment of Animals” (2006).

28

A vision of nature that perceives value both in the individual and in the whole of which it is a part is a vision that entails a of the term holism….It invites us to see value not as a commodity to be assigned by rational analysis, but rather as a living dynamic that is constantly in flux (p. 44).

Inter-subjectivity, or the holistic practice of connecting thought processes, transcends fragmented communities. As a transformative learning practice, RIT brings audiences closer to the emotional experiences of other animals. When techno-scientists formulate rationalized universal rules concerning sentience, they ignore the emotional, instinctive component that builds animal relationships which, inevitably dematerializes sentience from “the whole.” An arts-based dialogue about animal rights is well placed in the qualitative research field as it draws on deeper relational connections to the natural world in order to inform various curricula (Dolby, 2012). Hence, the Arts evoke emotional responses, and so the conversation sparked by ‘open rescue’ narratives is highly engaging and profoundly ideological (Leavy, 2008).

Eco-feminists and care theorists evoke a critical responsiveness to animal exploitation, questioning how a dematerializing discourse, “…is always based on distance from the body” (Scarry, 1985, p. 161). RIT scripts make powerful emotive connections to bodies; the individuality of animal suffering is acknowledged within a holistic sentient realm because it provides an opportunity to shape how the general public responds to animal suffering beyond oppressor consciousness.

Feminist ethic of care literature (Donovan & Adams, 2007; Kheel, 1985; MacKinnon, 1987; Scarry, 1985) reasons that by reconnecting relations between the body and its full range of feelings, we allow for reclamation of animal bodies, including women’s bodies. ‘Open rescue’ scripts inform a broader public about how vivisectors distance suffering from bodies – the power of science to dematerialize bodies from “the whole” is deconstructed (Adams, 2007). Our capacity to deny and detach ourselves from suffering, so that we may avoid our own pain, is significantly inhibited when audience members bear witness to animals in pre-and post-. Legitimating emotions towards animals, especially when their pain is intimately connected to our pain (and vice versa) may convince audiences to reconnect to “the whole.”

29

Critical Animal Studies (CAS) and a feminist care theory are inherently political because it is “a movement to liberate democracy from ” (Gilligan, 2008, p. 10). Engaging with the political aspirations of feminist and animal activists, Research-Informed Theatre allows ethnographers to retrieve and perform subversive voices, bringing them out of the silence of oblivion.

Where voices were silenced by ideological indoctrination, RIT scripts can attune the reader to political choices within the circular realm; informing the wider public about animal testing directly, so that they become involved in “the whole” process of moral decision-making. Power vested in the people expresses resistance to the norms and values of an elitist speciesist agenda. RIT scripts can counter the detached rationality of a dominant discourse, which justifies harming animals, by addressing how animals resist: “[t]hey vote with their feet by running away…[t]hey , scream in alarm, withhold affection, approach warily, fly and swim off” (Mackinnon, 2007, p. 324). By empowering the personal through an ethic of care, Gilligan (2010) contends that our moral choices personalize a political response,

[w]hen the oppressed are conceived as being morally significant, hearing their voices is an imperative step in the liberation process because it necessarily counters the ideological system that rules them insignificant, rendering them silent – that system being sexism in the case of women, speciesism in the case of animals (p. 10).

If we think, for example, that there is nothing morally wrong with harming animals, we ought to visit a university research lab to find out if we still feel that way. Utilizing theatrical illusion, ‘open rescue’ scripts transport the reader/viewer into the institutional setting, engaging the audience in ‘open rescue’ stories that render the animal visible. In short, research-informed theatre entails ethical responsiveness to the voices of the oppressed as it makes holistic connections to all of nature. When audiences are empathetically attuned to affirming life as opposed to destroying it, arts-based qualitative research can become a powerful ethical response to animal suffering within universities. In Chapter Four, I outline to the reader how three ‘open rescue’ respondents affirm the intrinsic value of animals by embracing an emotive response, in the form of sentient empathy.

30

RIT scripts can counter a societal response that denies animal suffering by highlighting how sentient empathy affirms life. Indeed, reading about characters who have rescued animals from harm encourages us to recognize our own suffering –a redemptive experience linking us back to “the whole.” Additionally, ‘open rescue’ narratives counter an oppressor consciousness since a respect for different opinions and different bodies builds an understanding of empathy among sentient groups (Gruen, 2004).

‘Open Rescue’: An Emotive and Subjective Response

Advocates of ‘open rescue’ regard the emotive and subjective response to animal oppression as inclusive of feminist caring principles, which rejects species objectification. Adams (2007) explains the nature of feminist care theory concerning animals,

Attention is a key word in feminist ethic-of-care theorizing about animals. Attention to the individual suffering animal but also – and this is a critical difference between an ethic-of-care and an “animal welfare” approach – attention to the political and economic systems that are causing the suffering. A feminist ethic-of-care approach to animal ethics offers a subjective analysis that entails political theory (p. 3).

Noting the systems of structural inequalities that limit an animal’s autonomy and individuality, Adams (2007) urges activists to resist using objectified depictions of bodies and instead, broaden activist scrutiny of intersectional oppressions (p. 3).

Unlike traditional welfare approaches that deal with one animal at a time feminist ethic-of-care theory insists that causal systems be addressed. The feminist care approach recognizes the importance of each individual animal, while developing a more comprehensive analysis of the animal’s situation. Catherine McKinnon (2007) reminds us that, as carers and empathizers, we can never let power off the hook. By connecting to the sentient “whole,” RIT can hold speciesist power to account by bringing forth evocative stories about animal rescues that challenge the paternalistic discourse of vivisectors who say, “We care for you” so you need not care about the suffering of others when we harm them. By attuning the broader public to intersubjective relationships with animals, Research-Informed Theatre has the holistic potential to stimulate social change, as individuals assert, “I care for myself” as I care about and respond to the

31

suffering of others (Adams, 1996, p. 215). Not surprisingly, each respondent (Participant Y; Participant NU; and Participant K) I interviewed followed this creed, which highlights the “emotionally and politically evocative” nature of arts-based ethnographic research.

From my research interviews, open rescuers differentiate themselves from PETA activists by adopting feminist care principles that attend not only to each animal’s suffering, but also to why that animal is suffering in the first place; sentient empathy moves beyond the objectification of animal rights toward a thorough systemic scrutiny of animal suffering. If human power is based on distance from animal suffering (Scarry, 1987, p. 46), then the open rescuers I interviewed were interested in shortening that distance so that a relationship existed between reclaiming the body (both non-human and human bodies) and its full range of feeling. By favoring a contextual and emotive ethic that promotes a narrative understanding of the particulars of animal experimentation (utilising performed ethnography or RIT), the concept of ‘open rescue’ begins to mirror feminist care principles as it too demands a political analysis of the reasons how and why animals are killed in universities. By incorporating a political analysis of the care tradition, the ‘open rescue’ movement distances itself from PETA’s sexualisation of animal welfare. Instead, the open rescuers I interviewed espouse a sentient liberation for all, where empathy for the suffering of animal bodies, including women oppressed in a sex-species system, is at the centre of feminist ethic-of-care approach.

Another theory attuned to caring principles, Critical Animal Studies (CAS), deconstructs the infrastructures and ideologies that hide animals from our awareness, or from any possibility of our attentiveness, so that any focus on these various losses is “really nothing new” (Johnson & Thomson, 2013, p. 5). I believe creating ‘open rescue’ scripts can bring to light an awareness of animals in university laboratories so that, “animals can be seen and heard, cared for, and learned from” (Donovan, 2013, p. 5). Donovan contends that too truly “care” about animals, human beings must interpret and heed “the different voice” of animals, as they can easily be discerned. That “different voice” transmutes, Donovan (2013) asserts,

[w]hen the oppressed are conceived as being morally significant, hearing their voices is an imperative step in the liberation process because it necessarily counters the

32

ideological system that rules them insignificant, rendering them silent – that system being sexism in the case of women, speciesism in the case of animals (p. 10).

Making parallels with women’s oppression, Donovan (2013) asserts the need for a care- based animal ethic,

As the silenced voice of women is inherently subversive to patriarchy, so is the silenced voice of animals necessarily subversive to the current speciesist regime…care theory entails ethical responsiveness to the voices of the oppressed, whose expressed desires form the basis for principled ethical action (p. 10-11).

By turning interview transcripts into scripted plays, I summon an ethical responsiveness to the voices of oppressed animals, expanding the parameters of a care-based animal ethic. More specifically, in broadening the scope of ethical action, emotions like sentient empathy inform concern about animal suffering; each scripted character I created reveals emotions that adhere to a sentimentalist approach within animal ethics. Sentimentalists contend that entering into intersubjective states with sentient beings reveals their moral significance (Aaltola, 2015). Hence, my ethical rational for transcribing ‘open rescue’ interviews into dramatic scripts renders the suffering of animals as significant—each play disrupts our comfortable distance from animal suffering so that the reader/viewer feels the pain of sentient beings in distress. As an animal lover myself, could I invoke a sentimentalist ethic that brings the reader/viewer closer to the animal body?

Within this sentimentalist approach, Aaltola (2015) asserts that our openness to emotions reveals the moral depth of animals. Unlike vivisectors who rationalize a harmful discourse that obliterate bodies, a sentimentalist ethic is a powerful reminder that sentient inter-subjectivity can bring us closer to animal bodies. Animal activists and feminists ethic-of-care theorists advocate building interspecies relationships with animals as a way of, “imaginatively projecting ourselves into the …alien experiential worlds of other animals and…entering into intersubjective states with them (Aaltola, 2015, p. 215).

As a male researcher positioned within the animal rights movement that is largely a movement of women who care about animals, I am aware that the (hyper) rationalized, ideologically-laden text in my research project, may divert from emotive learning that focuses on kindness,

33

compassion, empathy and respect. Dealing with the question of care from an emotional context, I ask: Do male educators have a moral obligation or responsibility to end animal suffering?

Bridging the Gap: Taylor and Signal’s “Empathy and Attitudes to Animals”

As a male elementary school teacher undertaking an arts-based research methodology, I am interested in audiences’ opinions and attitudes toward animal testing, and whether dramatic scripts of animal rescues from universities can affect sentient empathy. Transformative aspects of Research-Informed Theatre invite audience members to address aspects of desensitization within a speciesist society. I am interested in whether arts-based research could act as a catalyst for the broader treatment of empathy deficits and anti-social behaviors among older students and educators. If an individual is attached to the sentient “whole”, are they more or less inclined to empathize with animals and resist speciesist desensitization? There is some indication that human attitudes to animals may be indicative of human–human empathy among certain groups, which may enable bodies to get closer to “the whole” in order to affect consciousness and empower political change.

Scanning academic journals, secondary sources, and internet postings presented scant information on arts-based holistic approaches that address empathy deficits among animals. But in a lone academic article entitled “Empathy and Attitudes to Animal” in the Journal of the Interactions of People and Animals, Australian sociologist Nicola Taylor and New Zealand psychologist Tania Signal (2005) suggest a direct correlation between empathy levels, gender, companion animal ownership and attitudes to animals at a young age.

In a research study administered to 194 Australian undergraduate students, Taylor and Signal (2005) concluded that the promotion of sentient empathy is one way of breaking the speciesist cycle of anti-social behaviour. Citing the lack of research on animal attitudes, Taylor and Signal (2005) conclude that there is a significant correlation between students who empathize with animals, and their ability to resist speciesist desensitization,

34

…considering empathy as a specific construct, rather than subsumed within general personality, there is a substantive link between it and attitudes to animals. Therefore this result supports the premise of using humane education (to promote animal- welfare appropriate attitudes) as an early intervention measure to break cycles of antisocial behavior by engendering human–human empathy (p. 24-25).

My ‘open rescue’ scripts about animal testing allude to Taylor and Signal’s findings on two levels. Firstly, various groups (women, animal owners, and students who cared for animals in their youth) are primed to further social change as they are informed of animal suffering and predisposed to practice sentient empathy. These fragmented groups could possibly practice ‘open rescue’ which, like the example of ’s moratorium on factory farming, empowers individuals to find identity in a “whole” society where communities unite to end subjugation of an oppressed species group.

Secondly, as an arts-based holistic research method, RIT scripts reconnect activist education to the sentient whole by confronting the positivist stance of vivisectors who desensitize students from practicing sentient empathy. From Taylor and Signal’s (2005) findings, speciesist interpretations of sentience can be remedied through humane education that espouses appropriate animal-welfare attitudes, like refraining from killing animals at the end of experimentation. As an early intervention measure among children, theorists affirm the need to use “humane education” to engender human–human empathy that could break cycles of antisocial behavior (Ascione, 1992; Ascione & Weber 1996; Barker et al., 2000).

Hanley (2013) argues that getting educators to adopt the medium of art within social justice education is paramount to raising awareness about empathy in the classroom since,

we can study the known and the ubiquitous unknown on conscious and unconscious, intellectual, intuitive, and emotional levels; we can inform, empathize, envision possibilities, and raise critical consciousness (p. 5).

Haki Madjabuti (2013) observes that what “our children need is love and the arts… [l]ove, so that they know their value; the arts so they can express that value (p. 6)”. American philosopher and human rights activist Cornel West (Alternative Radio, 2014) contends that an “unapologetic

35

love” is guided by four anti-oppressive questions: How does integrity face oppression? ; What does honesty do in the face of deception? ; What does decency do in the face of insult? And how does face immorality? West is adamant that the transformational power of art can positively affect society to reveal answers against a backdrop of global catastrophe. Furthermore, West contends that art, in the form of music and conscious lyrics, has the evocative power to change oppressive constructs because it lends itself to militant tenderness, subversive sweetness and radical gentleness.

Abstract artist Angela Singer also uses art to express emotive connections to sentient beings, reconstructing a melange of found taxidermic animals into figurative pieces. Singer asks the viewer to think compassionately about where the animal is, where they came from, who they were and how we treat them. Singer (as cited in Baker 2013) reveals that her artistic intent is “not ideological” but about “real life and real death” noting,

Almost everyone knows something about the reality of animal suffering. It doesn’t really matter if the work is understood with anything other than the heart. I would prefer it to be felt, for the viewer to be vulnerable and open up to compassion (p. 165).

In her search for compassion, Singer finds meaning in her art—but does meaningful art suggest a definitive concern or awareness from audience members about the suffering of 'sentient beings' on university campuses? Singer’s sculptures may evoke sympathy, and possibly, compassion from the viewer, but my RIT scripts, as liberating texts, explore an empathetic possibility where the audience member allows both the heart and the mind to engage emotionally and politically in an ‘open rescue’ discourse.

Arts-based research becomes an effective form of activism when it engages the audience to become emotionally aware of animal suffering while considering other animals as they would themselves – sentient beings deserving of rights, protections and lives-worthy-of living. Thus, research that facilitates an emotional response to animal suffering can harness the potential of theatre to promote critical dialogue and inspire conversations about animal testing on-and-off campus. But if students are to become the next generation of caring, loving and empathizing arts-

36

based teachers, what are they learning (or not learning) from their teachers who are, themselves, morally constrained to care for and empathize with animals?

Pedagogies that Imperil and Poison

Our connection to the sentient world is fractured evermore when 98.8% of 5000 high school biology teachers report dissecting and experimenting on animals during their own formative education (King et al., 2004). Pollsters concluded that exposing young people to animal dissection as “science” fostered a callousness toward animals and nature which actually dissuaded some students from pursuing careers in science (Arluke & Hafferty, 1996; Solot & Arluke, 1997; Stanisstreet, Spofforth & Williams, 1993). Most notably, recent studies indicate that students reluctantly participated in animal experiments out of fear of real or perceived punishment or ostracism from their teachers and peers (Oakley, 2012; Oakley, 2013).

A speciesist curriculum weans empathy out of students so that when they become researchers there is an explicit understanding that the extremity of animal experimentation will always involve animal suffering that somehow ‘benefits’ human beings. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM, 2015) reports that as many as 13,000 animals die so that one can be tested and brought to market; there are currently more than 10,000 on the market. Moreover, pesticide researchers consistently elicit toxic dosages to animals of 100 to more than 1,000 times higher than the dose to which humans will ever be exposed. PCRM (2015) contends that not only is toxic dosing cruel to animals, but such large doses often overwhelm the animals’ systems, making interpretation of the study results difficult, which then leads to repeat or additional dosing of animals.

Without public accountability or institutional safeguards to protect animals, student researchers implicitly learn that ‘benefits’ derived from animal testing have no moral parameters. Indeed, there is no pre-requisite to practice animal ethics when such muted knowledge is shared only by the vivisector and his/her ‘research subject,’ who is being unquestionably poisoned to death. Arts-based ethnographies that shed light on animal subjugation counter the dominant positivist

37

discourse that makes animal testing invisible to the general public and desensitizes our collective consciousness from ever empathizing with animal suffering.

Unpatients: The Structural Violence of Animals in Medical Education

A review of scholarly journals was devoid of any mention of institutional violence that reduced empathy toward animals. A recently published article by Jeff Thomas (2013) in the Journal for Critical Animal Studies shed light on how rarely animal suffering is brought to bear upon university officials. Entitled, “Unpatients: The Structural Violence of Animals in Medical Education”, Thomas recounts how harming animals in a live dissection lab at the Tulane University’s Medical School became so naturalized as not to warrant any attention. Even when Thomas exposed the occurrence of “unethical” research practices, university officials obfuscated from enforcing mandated regulations that would give voice to animal mistreatment.

Reading about the often lonely process Thomas went through to become a whistleblower, I was reminded of comments made by research respondents I interviewed, particularly when they alluded to how important it was to break the silence surrounding animal testing. The stories that get told are those of the winners, while exploited animals are the losers who endure institutional violence without any moral consequence(s) brought upon the researcher. But if more researchers, like Thomas, were empowered to give voice to the voiceless, perhaps the human-devised “technohell” in university laboratories could be held accountable for the institutional violence that objectifies animal bodies and disregards their suffering.

RIT scripts can inform audiences about ethical lapses surrounding animal testing. For example, when I developed the play script for the fictional character – “Pat”, I made sure the rescue of animals highlighted the hierarchy of secrecy concerning institutional violence,

We negotiate with labs through a friendly inside contact, usually a laboratory veterinarian or a lab technician. With the “Lucky 10” release, our source at the research facility was assured of anonymity so higher-ups would not be able to identify and punish that individual. I just wish more anonymous researchers would

38

reach out to us as a way of saving animal lives…. Our prime motivation for doing this is that what is happening in those labs is nightmarish.

Within these RIT passages, I subvert the reified signs, symbols, and images of institutional violence by empowering the “whistleblower” – the moral agent who reclaims the censured voice of animals made invisible and exploited for human gain.

Yet, within capitalist discourse, an enduringly resilient techno-science prescribes a positivist edict that serves human needs by objectifying less-deserving species. In his critique of our machine-like existences, American sociologist Lewis Mumford (1955) contends that by reviving an ideology of the “organism and the person” we counter the objectification of living things,

As an integral part of modern culture, the machine will remain as long as modern culture remains.... as a dominant element, wholly subduing life to the demands of mechanization, reducing the personality and the group to a mechanical unit.…Indeed, the emphasis on the impersonal, the anti-organic, the non-humanistic, the “objective” must now be counteracted by a temporary over-preoccupation, perhaps, with the organic, the subjective, the personal (p. 213-214).

When developing the “organic” or holistic self, the cognitive learner must connect to the rest of his/her life as it relates to the natural world (Cohn & Kottkamp, 1993). By working together rather than in isolation, educators and students can decentre the self in order to build “moral circles” that nurture ethical relationships within the sentient whole.

Critical Animal Studies

Probing a holistic approach to research led me to a rapidly growing interdisciplinary paradigm- Critical Animal Studies (CAS), which promotes a holistic interpretation of the sentient world. CAS has influenced the “animal turn” in faculty departments across North America (ICAS, 2015). CAS educators argue that “animal liberation” cannot be properly formulated and enacted apart from “human liberation,” and vice versa. In expanding upon intersectional, transformative holistic, theory-to-action, activist-scholarship, the Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS, 2015) advances,

39

a holistic understanding of the commonality of oppressions, such that speciesism, sexism, racism, ableism, statism, classism, militarism and other hierarchical ideologies and institutions are viewed as parts of a larger, interlocking, global system of domination (p. 2).

Part of the CAS initiative within academia is a focus on arts-based experiential learning and emotive subjectivity which is highlighted at CAS conferences and in faculty journals in response to the insular, non-normative, and apolitically detached disciplines of the Medical Sciences and Animal Studies departments. Animal Studies (AS) stresses vivisection, dissection, and behavior control and welfare politics of animals as a field of scientific research. In the last fifteen years, Critical Animal Studies has emerged as a necessary and vital alternative to the insularity, hypocrisy, and profound limitations of mainstream AS courses (Best et al., 2007).

A critical approach to animal studies seeks to build new forms of consciousness through an understanding of relations between human and nonhuman animals that as a point of crisis, implicates the entire planet. In critiquing pseudo-objective analysis of AS departments, Best et al. (2007) describes how positivist illusions within academia divest from political commitments to end animal suffering,

Animal studies has already entrenched itself as an abstract, esoteric, jargon- laden…discipline, one where scholars can achieve recognition while nevertheless remaining wedded to speciesist values, carnivorous lifestyles, and at least tacit – sometime overt —support of numerous forms of animal exploitation, like vivisection (p. 1).

As qualitative research methodology, RIT attempts to link, “theory to practice, analysis to politics, and the academy to the community” (ICAS, 2015, p. 2).

Decentring Research: “the most vocal and the least vocal”

As a Toronto District School Board educator and UT graduate student, creating Research- Informed Theatre scripts allowed me to build “moral circles” that linked research to the sentient whole. By decentring myself as the all-knowing expert, I focus instead on trying to tell the story of a sentient community that gets, what Anna Deavere Smith (as cited in Johnson, 2012) describes as, “the most vocal and the least vocal people to talk…” about research on animals

40

(para. 10). But if animals cannot talk, does this not preclude them from sitting at the sentient table? Not entirely, since RIT scripts, as an arts-based holistic practice, acknowledge that the sum of the communicative and interpretive parts embody the oppressed subject and do not exceed the liberated sentient whole. By focusing on the “least vocal animals”, an “emotionally and politically evocative” consciousness can surely be awakened (Ellis 2000, p.273). One effect of this decentering process is that it allows individuals to expose dynamics of power that remained previously hidden (Crossman, 2015). In my research, I was interested in making intersectional links among species groups where the oppressed parts of one species are reconnected to the liberated whole.

When I transformed research interviews into RIT scripts, I favoured a holistic approach in my playwriting. I was inspired by the testimonials of open rescuers who explained that liberating animals from university research facilities helped to liberate themselves. My scripted characters and the animals that were (and were not) rescued struggle together against the exploitation, domination, and oppression of university vivisectors.

CAS educators argue that species survival is dependent upon a flourishing environment and global ecology where holistic theory favours animal, human, and Earth liberation that is inseparably intertwined to the politics of “total liberation” (Best, 2009, p.15). Part of the CAS mandate is to further solidarity through revolutionary actions, theories, and movements, which allow for the dismantling of systems of oppression. This is an important criterion within my research project as I draw upon multiple sources of knowledge (Goldstein, 2012) that are disruptive including and Carol J. Adams’ (2013) critique of feminist care theory as an ethical response to the “different voices” of animals resisting speciesist subjugation.

Feminist Care Theory in Animal Ethics

For my literature review, I am interested in a feminist care theory which requires an ideological shift in values that redefine “what is real, what is important and [what] counts” as a means of disrupting and reconfiguring a “reality assumed to be common” (Paperman, 2010, p. 89). I believe the ‘open rescue’ of animals incorporates feminist care principles that disrupt the

41

accepted practice of researcher apathy toward animal suffering, replacing it with researcher empathy, as the voice of the non-human animal is given equal regard to that of the human animal.

Carol J. Adams: Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics

Citing the ethical dilemma of denying animal invisibility in The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics, Carol J. Adams (2007) unpacks the objectified representations of animal suffering under the sub-heading “Saving Animals Is Not Enough”,

…people’s reaction to stark images of animal suffering resulted in the banning of these images. Precisely because emotions are both feared and seen as untrustworthy and precisely because animal suffering prompts emotional reactions, the animal rights movement is prevented from using images of animal suffering. What remains to be used? (p. 220).

Similar to the “evangelical” tone affixed to animal activists when transparency and scrutiny are denied by institutional administrators, what remains when images of animal suffering are made to disappear? Prevailingly, the viewer is left with naked women’s bodies, which upholds a sex- species system that women (and non-human animals) cannot easily opt out of (Adams & Donovan, 2007). I will elaborate on this sex-species pitfall by deconstructing a PETA anti-fur campaign where hypersexualized images create an “othering” of sentient beings, which ultimately limits the inter-subjectivity of bodies.

PETA vs Open Rescue

A typical example of mainstream campaigning is PETA’s highly publicized anti-fur advertisements (“Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur”) that show actors and supermodels pledging to go naked rather than wear animal fur. By exposing the cruelty of the fur industry, PETA persuaded several retailers and US designers to stop selling fur or using fur in their designs. Similar to the motives of the ‘open rescue’ movement, PETA (peta.org, 2015) documented the “hideous treatment of animals” by sending investigators to work undercover in research facilities and factory farms to expose animal abuses,

42

We… take our evidence to the perpetrators and beneficiaries of animal abuse…and ask for meaningful change that will eliminate or ease animals’ suffering. We also file formal complaints with the government agencies that oversee the facilities we investigate. If negotiating efforts with any company or individual are unsuccessful— and as we wait for the creaky wheels of government to turn—we launch campaigns that will continue for as long as it takes to effect change (n.p.).

So successful were PETA’s campaigns that public policy on animal testing began to shift in favour of increasing animal rights protection. In 1999, PETA led negotiations with the White House and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce the number of animals slated to be used in EPA’s chemical-testing program. PETA’s petition to the EPA saved 800,000 animals and was supported by several activist groups including the US Humane Society, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and the American Anti-Vivisection Society (peta.org, 2015).

Under the ‘Success Stories’ banner, a PETA website lists several recent victories: “Miami-Dade School District Ends Dissection”; “ City School Drops Cat Dissection”; “Japan Airlines Stops Shipping Monkeys to Labs”; and “University of Kentucky forced to release experimentation records to PETA”, The last success story is telling as it gets to the heart of the transparency debate where the institutionalization of animal experimentation, once “closed to public scrutiny” was opened up by PETA lawyers after they filed a procedural appeal (peta.org, 2015, para. 1). Kentucky’s Attorney General ruled that the University of Kentucky violated the Kentucky Open Records Act by refusing to provide PETA with records related to its use of animals in classroom laboratories and training exercises. The university must now provide PETA with protocols describing classroom experiments on animals, which PETA will use to determine whether the school is using animals in experiments when superior and humane non-animal methods are available to the university (peta.org, 2015). Consequently, PETA’s scrutiny bodes well for open rescuers who remind university researchers that the ‘open rescue’ of animals should be considered a viable option when transitioning to non-lethal alternatives.

Yet, there is a divergence of theoretical practices among the two movements. Deconstructing PETA’s anti-fur media campaign reveals the use of hypersexualized images of predominantly white, heterosexual, and able-bodied actors and models who advocate for animal rights within

43

the context of hegemonic, patriarchal hierarchies that oppress both animals and women. PETA justifies using nudity to promote animal rights claiming human beings have the right and opportunity (not bestowed to animals) to make a political statement against animal cruelty. Describing it as a “provocative” act, PETA uses nudity as an, “attention-grabbing action” to get people talking about the cruelty of wearing fur, which does not register on most people’s political radar. In an on-line article entitled, “Why does PETA sometimes use nudity in its campaigns?”(Click: http://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/why-does-peta-sometimes-use-nudity- in-its-campaigns/ ) PETA called attention to the issue,

The smart, compassionate…women who pose “naked” for PETA choose to do so because they support the cause and want to take action to help animals. For example, model Rosanna Davison… chose to pose naked for PETA’s “Vegans Are Red Hot” advertisement because her body has benefited from wholesome -based foods and she wanted to promote healthy vegan living. If you take a moment to read her commentary “Why I posed naked for a cause I believe in,” you may better understand why she was so eager to call attention to the issue (peta.org, 2015, para. 2).

PETA’s “chose to pose naked” representation has been criticized by feminist groups for objectifying women in the name of animal rights. PETA’s failure to link the oppression of animals with the oppression of women overlooks the way both species are objectified and consumed in a capitalist patriarchy – physically for animals, and sexually for women. Feminists argue that in order to understand the gendered nature of responses to animal suffering, a social and political analysis of suffering and caring must take place.

In describing sexism and speciesism as interconnected systems of patriarchal oppression, Adams (2007) explains why animal advocates like PETA fail to address the gendered nature of caring,

[t]he species barrier has always been gendered and racialized; patriarchy has been inscribed through species inequality as well as human inequality. The emphasis on differences between human and animals not only reinforces fierce boundaries about what constitutes humanness, but particularly about what constitutes manhood. That which traditionally distinguishes humans from animals – qualities such as reason and rationality – has been used as well to differentiate men from women, whites from people of color (p. 202-203).

44

Thus, “man” (i.e. white man) exists as a concept and a through the negation of the “other” (I.e. not women, not beast, not coloured). Adams argues that male privilege is disproportionately upheld since objectified human bodies, in the form of naked PETA models, are acceptable within a sex-species system while the bodies of nonhuman animals remain undesirable, invisible, and like women, “othered”. Thus, PETA and its use of objectified bodies continue to maintain a “humanocentric focus” (Adams, 1996, p. 193). I will examine how individuals, especially students, are resisting a dominant speciesist discourse without having to submit to a sex-species objectification.

Resistance: Empathy Springs Eternal

Hope is not entirely lost for the millions of animals confined in university laboratories or for those students seeking a more humane education beyond species objectification. In fact, Australia has reduced the number of animals being used in teaching by 99.77 per cent (O’Sullivan, 2011, p. 82). Students are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the use of animals in education and experimentation. According to Gallup polls, between 2001 and 2013, the number of students opposed to animal testing rose from 31 percent to 54 percent (Goodman & Borch, 2014).

There is an awakening movement of students and academics adopting merciful technologies within the research community that refrain from using animals. As I detailed earlier, animal welfare organizations like Humane Society International, Interniche and PETA have funded several non-lethal research alternatives. In fact, the promotion of sophisticated alternatives is helping to lead a global opposition to animal testing.

Consequently, a resistance movement of conscientious objectors opposed to animal testing are completing post-secondary degrees without ever having to harm animals. Noting the spread of student resistance to animal experimentation, PCRM (2011) posits, “[t]he right to refuse…has been established in many schools across the country because so many students have refused to participate” (para. 7). Students who are voicing their ethical objections to animal testing are a new generation of learners approaching science from an anti-speciesist foundation.

45

From my ‘open rescue’ interviews, I will examine how respondents resisted the dominant discourse that objectifies animal bodies making them invisible within a superstructure of violence and exploitation –what (1989) describes as the animal industrial complex. As a form of sentient empathy, the open rescuers I interviewed reacted to institutional apathy, indifference and public compliance of vivisection by witnessing the trauma done to animals and then resolving to remove those animals from harm’s way.

‘Open Rescue’ Movement

‘Open rescue’, as a form of , involves documenting animal suffering inside research facilities, while also providing animals veterinary care and safe shelter. ‘Open rescue’ puts the emphasis on the openness of rescuers actions, and as such, they always act openly without masks (unless required for health reasons), practice non-violence, and publish their full identities. The moral premise of the ‘open rescue’ movement is that, as a compassionate, empathetic, and competent society, it is wrong to knowingly let any individual, regardless of their species, die a painful death (OpenRescue.org, 2015). The philosophy of ‘open rescue’ is based on giving aid, rescue and comfort to any suffering animal held in research facilities, factory farms or domestic residences. Open rescuer’s aim to save animal lives and publicize the harmful procedures that go unnoticed among the general public. Most activists will work openly with individuals such as institutional researchers, factory farm workers, concerned citizens, legislators and journalists to rescue animals in distress.

Disturbingly, animal activists must learn to cope with a range of emotions when rescuing distressed animals. As revealed by the respondents I interviewed, bearing witness to abhorrent conditions of animal cruelty can cause anguish, frustration, and psychological pain. Additionally, each respondent felt a deep sense of despair since many more animals could have been rescued but were left behind in research facilities.

46

‘Open Rescue’ versus

By identifying themselves as animal activists (who practice a Gandhian form of non-violence called ahimsa), open rescuers are prepared to suffer any consequence(s) that may incur from trespassing in facilities where animals are being held. In contrast, Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activists remain anonymous and employ “direct liberation” of animals and "economic sabotage" against companies or individuals who utilize animals for research or economic gain. ALF will also lay damage to those who maintain business links with vivisectors. An anonymous communique posted on an ALF website details the recent bombing of trucks in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada belonging to Laboratories, a company owned by (HLS),

This action was undertaken in order to eliminate this evil company's means of transportation, to disrupt the systematic and murder of innocent animals, and to cause as much monetary damage as possible. Fortunately, news reports have said that the devices ignited successfully, damaging one truck and completely destroying the other. Our only regret is that the flames were extinguished before they had a chance to spread to Harlan's offices (Animal Liberation Front.com, 2015, para. 2).

ALF’s use of "economic sabotage" takes its roots from French labour disruptions in the 19th Century where a striking French weaver cast a wooden shoe—called a sabot—into the delicate mechanism of the loom upon leaving the mill. The subsequent confusion that resulted took the name of ‘sabotage’ (Ellen, 1913). Designated as a form of criminal activity, “economic sabotage” is designed to cause economic loss or destruction to the victims' operations and property. ALF’s disruption of animal exploitation industries also involves multi-national campaigns of harassment, intimidation and coercion against animal testing companies, particularly HLS and universities. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines ALF’s violent rhetoric and tactics as “eco-terrorism” noting that, “animal rights extremists harassment [of] research employees is designed to inflict increasing economic damage until the company is forced to cancel its contracts or business relationship with the original target” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2004, para. 5).

47

Contrastingly, the Animal Liberation Victoria (ALV) Rescue Team, based in Australia, has been conducting non-violent ‘open rescues’ at factory farms for nearly 20 years. ALV’s investigations have been so well received by the Australia public and state legislators because no property was destroyed and ALV video evidence captured, for the first time, shocking conditions of piglets on factory farms. Notably, Australian activist Patty Mark pioneered the notion that ‘open rescue’ activists do nothing to conceal their identities as a way of inviting prosecution. Going to court, or to jail, helps to focus attention on an issue that vivisectors and agribusiness owners make every effort to hide from public scrutiny (Hawthorne, 2005).

This is one area where the motives of open rescuers differ significantly from ALF tactics. Since open rescuers do not damage or sabotage property, and are not an immediate threat to the animal exploitation industry, open rescuers are sometimes invited to intervene on behalf of animals as noted by all three respondents I interviewed. Moreover, open rescuers save vivisectors money by taking sick and dying animals from cages to be adopted out to caring individuals and organizations. Though not a formal policy, the open rescuers I interviewed adopted some of the animals that they had rescued. Most rescue animals end up in safe havens like adoptee homes, rescue centres and sanctuaries where they get their first taste of freedom (Welowszky, 2015).

The success of Australian open rescuers in the mid 1980’s spread to Europe and North America where animal activists heeded the call to organize ‘open rescue’ teams and publicize the state of animal suffering in the pre-millennium. Commenting on the success of North America’s animal welfare groups like and Compassion Over Killing (COK), who document animal suffering using hidden cameras, Mack (COK, 2003) reiterates the importance of getting the ‘open rescue’ message to a larger audience,

[the] COK open rescue exclusive in opened America’s eyes. This is your…challenge—to keep their eyes open, to keep reminding the public over and over again what’s going on. Members of open rescue teams are crucial witness bearers and message senders. We are the animals’ photojournalists. The images we take… and the stories we tell of what we see will set these animals free in the long run (para. 16).

48

Moral Theory of Animal Rights: Affirming Emotions

As mentioned in the previous chapter, alternatives to animal testing harness new ethical possibilities in medico-science. By penetrating a reductionist Western scientific culture (that abhors caring principles), sentient-friendly alternatives promote a concept of rights protections that cannot be fully explained without an analysis of . Philosopher (2015) contends that more attention needs to be focused on the relevance of specific emotions when contemplating moral judgements. In ascribing to a sentimentalist approach, Aaltola argues that societal change can only happen by changing cultural stereotypes and the emotions that trivialize sentience. Aaltola (2015) asks, “How…can we seek to advocate a more empathetic approach towards other animals – an approach that will derail existing stereotypes linked to animality?” (p. 213).

As a rhetorical question, Aaltola answers it by suggesting that moral concern can be sustained using affective empathy. By getting closer to and familiar with the emotions and experiences of other animals, empathy counters the detachment, egoism, and bias that defines scientific utility. Understanding the “inner states “and “individuality” of others, allows for values and reason to reflect what is resonated by affective empathy (Aaltola, 2015, p. 213).

Allowing for more expressive forms of inter-species communication, such as stories of ‘open rescue,’ a broader public concerns itself with the subjectivity of the animal and its moral status as a sentient being. I would add that sentient empathy nurtures intersubjective relationships that focus on building moral status among animals. By recognizing how and why an animal suffers and what kind of an emotional response can save its life, a broader public attunes itself to a liberating praxis where rights protections defy species barriers.

Unfortunately, a detached pragmatism of reasoned-based animal ethics continues to prioritize who does and does not get harmed in research testing. Whereas sentient empathy, as a sentimentalist or emotive construct, accepts that every animal, including human beings, have moral status, and it is incumbent on sentient communities to protect each other from harm and suffering. I hold true to this caring analysis even when I am challenged with predator/prey

49

arguments where animal suffering inherently exists as a function of nature, albeit without patriarchal capitalism’s enforced speciesist barriers. So it is incumbent on arts-based research practices to provide an opportunity for the wider public to creatively envision alternate existences.

Pepper Rescue: “Saving Lives and Changing Hearts”

From his children’s book, Saving Lives and Changing Hearts, Canadian writer and biologist Rob Laidlaw (2013) describes what can happen when rescued find their way to safety and sanctuary. Laidlaw’s story of “Pepper” is most inspiring because of the extremity of violence one animal was made to endure before it was finally rescued. Born in a biomedical research laboratory, Pepper spent 27 years in various ‘research’ facilities, having been anesthetized 307 times, and operated on 57 times for tissue biopsies. Laidlaw (2013) notes the condition of Pepper before and after her rescue,

Pepper was one of 15 chimpanzees who came…from the Laboratory for Experimental Medicine and Surgery in (LEMSIP) in 2002….She was filled with fear and anxiety and spent most of her time blankly staring out of her tiny, barren cage (p. 32).

After arriving at the Fauna Foundation animal sanctuary in Quebec, Canada, Laidlaw (2013) describes the ’s recovery,

…it took Pepper more than a year to truly relax and to smile as chimpanzees do. She now likes looking out the window at the rest of the Fauna farm, playing and sweeping up wood chips on the floor…., grassy islands with elevated ropes and ladders, climbing towers, and long raised steel walkways give [Pepper] lots of room to move and freedom to choose what…to do (p. 32-33).

Using the art of children’s literature, Laidlaw (2013) details non-fictional narratives of a chimp rescue that became, as Born Free Chairperson Will Travers describes “required reading” for a select audience (p. 60). Consequently, creative non-fiction writing becomes another tool to engage young school children to challenge speciesist paradigms, particularly in the field of ethics and science education.

50

In a glowing book cover review of Saving Lives and Changing Hearts, International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) Rescue Manager Ian Robinson (cited in Laidlaw2013) draws on the emotive precepts of rescuing animals,

[The book] is about those who dedicate their lives to the rescue of these cast off and unwanted animals from lives of suffering. And in telling these stories from sanctuaries and rescue centres, Rob Laidlaw will surely change the hearts of his readers to bring greater compassion for unwanted animals…. (n.p.).

I would posit that the power of the dramatic spoken word, as revealed in the ‘open rescue’ scripts I developed, have the kind of liberating power similar to Laidlaw’s stories about animal sanctuaries. Trying to change the public’s perception about animal suffering using sentient empathy is both an artistic and political project that explores hard to discuss topics like death, fear and suffering. From her book Method Meets Art: Arts-Based Research Practices, Leavy (2008) confirms, “[t]he arts ideally evoke emotional responses, and so the dialogue sparked by arts-based practices is highly engaged” (p. 14). Further discussion on performed ethnography as an arts-based practice is taken up in Chapter Four.

In the next chapter, I will touch on emerging themes after analyzing respondent transcripts, specifically highlighting how respondents embraced sentient empathy as a means of saving animal lives.

CHAPTER THREE

Interview Findings

In this chapter, I will analyze the interview data from three open rescue respondents and explain how sentient empathy was effectively realized. In the appendix, I have included three short plays that dramatize the ‘open rescue’ of animals from university research facilities (Read Appendix A-C: Play 1-3). I begin with an analysis of the collected data, focusing on three distinct themes: behaviour, language, values (and the beliefs) they entail concerning the ‘open rescue’ of animals from university research facilities.

What I discovered in doing this work was the importance of “bearing witness” to animal cruelty as it became a response mechanism among the open rescuers when dealing with the trauma of animal experiments. Open rescuers re-establish what qualifies as “being” since sentience is not constituted outside the realm of consciousness or sensation. In each case, when respondents witnessed animal suffering it reawakened feelings of empathy and compassion toward animals. These experiences suggest that an erasure of personal experiences within university laboratories became an essential means of dividing passive subjects from active objects, allowing the status quo to maintain speciesism.

The stories of ‘open rescue’ at sites of consumption reveal a re-constitution of moral behaviour into sentient empathy. Each respondent experienced some form of trauma after observing animal suffering and they processed that pain by committing to behaviour that reduced animal suffering. Participants revealed behaviour, values and language that highlight a need for critical, compassionate and humane education—one that promotes non-human rights (“personhood”) and sentient empathy. It is my hope that by developing research-informed theatre scripts from the respondents’ testimonials, I can rupture a speciesist discourse that suppresses sentience in the name of positivist science.

By highlighting participants’ behaviour toward animals, I draw out the ethical complexity surrounding these ‘open rescues’ especially the use of sentient empathy as a way of disrupting

51

52 speciesism. The data reveals how each respondent rejected disparate (different) values that are assigned to individuals based solely on species membership.

Within the theme of language concerning the ‘open rescue’ of animals from laboratories, the interview data suggests a predominance of life-affirming words (like “welfarist”, “compassion” and “animal rights”) that helped open rescuers promote sentient empathy. Correspondingly, open rescuers also reveal life-denying words (I.e.” heart-wrenching”; “nightmarish”; “tremendous harm”; “emotional and physical scars”), which symbolize a language of trauma surrounding animal testing. Yet, the animal rescuers I interviewed do not exist outside of speciesist discourse; rather, they constituted discourse just as they were constituted by its messy and entangled language (Britzman, 2002; Fine, 1988; Walkerdine et. al., 2000). So much so, that the language of trauma warranted a do-no-harm response among animal rescuers, at odds with a utilitarian discourse, in which the human benefits of positivist scientific research are traded off against the harmful cost to the animal (Bekoff, 2006).

Within the theme of respondent values (and beliefs), I examine interview data that reveals a moral counter-narrative, or ahimsa, where sentient empathy and non-violence toward animals overcomes harmful aspects of animal testing. Subsequently, the subjectivities of animals reflect “lives worth living” (Matheny, 2003, p. 510). Within the framework of values, I gained insights into the beliefs of participants, who present a credible account of lived experiences that resist vivisection. In affirming animal lives, each respondent reveals a moral responsibility to animals absent of extremist ideologies. As an interview researcher, I incorporated respondents’ beliefs and values into three original characters that I created. This incorporation allowed for demonstrating authentic adequacy (Ellis, 2000) or a credible account of the lived experiences of open rescuers (and the animals they rescued) within the context of research-informed theatre scripts.

Theme 1: Behaviours

By highlighting participants’ behaviour toward animals, I draw out the emotional and moral complexity surrounding “open rescues.” The corresponding data reveals how each participant reacts to and rejects disparate values assigned to animals based solely on species membership. In

53 each case, respondents’ behaved empathetically toward animals and showed a moral concern that affirmed sentient empathy and animal rights.

Behaviour: “I myself adopted the mice…”

Over 200 Category D experiments occurred in 2010 at the University of Toronto, involving tens of thousands of mice and rats (University of Toronto Animal Rights Club, 2013). From the videotaped interview, Participant Y reacts to and rejects the disparate values university researchers assign to mice. I refer to Participant Y’s empathetic observations of anthropocentric experiments conducted at a university laboratory,

I noticed that somebody right next to me were injecting another small mouse with cancer. So they were doing tests on mice right while I was there. They didn’t know who I (Pause)…was but… I (Gesture gets larger) myself adopted the mice (Right hand raises to wipe right side of nose) seeing not too many people wanted to take…. (Hands still held out at chest level) A number of them have died since then (Pause) of natural causes (Slight bow to the left; eyes closed with hands brought to mouth in -like motion) another just died of causes unknown, another one was killed by one of his brother…the male mice are violent so I’ve had to separate them and put them in different cages (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd , 2013).

Participant Y’s actions are an empathetic counter-response to external stimuli that devalues animal life observing that, “not too many people” cared for the welfare of the mice. Participant Y’s articulation of “another small mouse with cancer” suggests that sentient bodies are constituted and initiated, even before they are taken-up in dialogue by researchers (Butler, 1993). Yet, Participant Y resists the life-denying behaviour surrounding him, appearing to be sorrowful with head bowed and hands clasped in prayer when describing the death of several mice he had helped to rescue. Intentionally, Participant Y resists sentient exclusion that exists prior to cancer- laced mice becoming “biological mechanisms, symptoms, and responses” and prior to animals (and their offspring) bred for “biological or clinical relevance” to become “valid model[s]…more susceptible to disease” (New England Anti-Vivisection Society, 2015, para. 2).

Thus, the denial of sentience relates to Butler’s (1993) concept of the “constitutive outside”

the unspeakable, the unviable, the non-narrativizable that secures and, hence, fails to secure the borders of materiality. The normative force of performativity - its power to

54

establish what qualifies as “being” – works not only through reiteration, but through exclusion as well (p. 88).

The utterance of a speciesist hierarchy enters into our classrooms, our minds, and our bodies as typical (and acceptable) behaviour. Contrastingly, Participant Y’s apprehension about animal experimentation (“they were doing tests on mice right while I was there”) contrasts with the ease with which researchers practice an invasive discourse that denies sentience.

Behaviour: “Bearing Witness”

“Bearing witness” to chronic pain experiments is Participant Y’s response behaviour to the normative force of speciesist performativity, which excludes mice from lives worth-living. By observing and then rescuing several mice, Participant Y changes the paradigm for animals. In effect, ‘open rescue’ re-establishes what qualifies as “being” since empathy and compassion are not constituted outside the realm of consciousness or sensation. By exposing oneself to the painful reality of animal suffering, bearing witness helps the observer re-consider behaviour that denies life to small mice. By choosing to rescue mice, Participant Y re-evaluates the notions of materiality, challenging the detached instrumentality of university researchers who kill animals even when proven alternatives could reduce animal suffering (Joy, 2012).

Observing animals in a , vegetarian novelist (as cited in McArthur, 2012) describes the importance of “bearing witness”,

[w]hen the suffering of another creature causes you to feel pain, do not submit to the initial desire to flee from the suffering one, but on the contrary, come closer, as close as you can to him who suffers, and try to help (para. 1).

Participant Y gets as close as he can to the ‘research’ mice, understanding their suffering and imaginatively entering into the animal’s feelings in order to assist them. By rescuing mice instead of abandoning them, Participant Y illustrates how his views about mice have changed,

I’ve had to really think about what is in their best interests and modify my views a little bit. Ahhmmm, and…and I’ve also, uhmm, (Swallows hard) experienced a lot of, ahh, sadness (Head bows; eyes barely open)… the fact that three of them died (Prolonged pause)… and what a tragic hard life it is for a mouse (Looking directly at the interviewer) …I mean, it’s made me quite aware… (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013).

55

Giving moral weight to the emotional and cognitive capacity of sentient beings, Participant Y affirms sentient empathy and animal rights. When contemplating sentience (“what a tragic hard life it is for a mouse”), Participant Y confronts a dispassionate university culture where disparate values commoditize animals as objects-of-a-life (Regan, 1983).

When I analysed both respondents’ behaviour from the interview transcripts, Participant Y and Participant K choose to distance themselves from the emotional default behaviour displayed by vivisectors who routinely inject animals with chemicals and diseases in, “chronic pain experiments… and then break[ ] their neck after the experiments” (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013). Vivisectors counter empathy and compassion toward sentient beings by ensuring default mechanisms like apathy maintain a clinical distance from the animal. Detachment from animals is often expressed in the form of joking or making light of the issue; apathy toward- and appeasement of vivisection becomes a coping mechanism for students confronted with animal suffering (Free From Harm, 2012).

Each participant counters the denial of sentience by rescuing animals. When animals are removed from university laboratories, each respondent re-affirms animal lives in a way that is contrary to a scientific discourse that promotes the disposability of life. A colleague who experimented on animals during her undergraduate studies at a Canadian university referred to this ritualistic coping discourse as a “rite of passage” among Life Science students (Interview with MC: 16th July, 2013).

Responding to student apathy toward animal suffering, Participant K evokes the spirit of political theorist Hannah Arendt, equating students’ initiatory rite to harm animals as a “nightmarish” scenario that touches on the “banality of evil" (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014). Participant K argues that it is in this scenario where ordinary people “obey orders and conform to do terrible things” (Ibid) without moral apprehension. Participant K reveals a deep love for animals which instils a moral ethic to defend the rights of animals, “[my] conscience asks me to take action. I am passionate about this because while I was growing up, I had as . It me to know that they use beagles as the dog of choice in laboratories” (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014).

56

By confronting animal suffering beyond apathy or mere sympathetic , Participant Y and Participant K reveal moral behaviour toward animals that affirms sentience, particularly sentient empathy toward mice and dogs that experience hardship in painful test experiments.

Beyond Behaviour: Changes in Consciousness

Animal ‘research’ produces moral gaps that separate behaviour from consciousness. From the interview transcripts, Participant Y describes atomized, rational medical students injecting mice with cancer, only to be killed later (“breaks their neck”) while Participant NU recounts how veterinary students participated in experiments (“unnecessary surgeries”) on dogs that gradually desensitized students to the suffering of non-human animals. Each example demonstrates how oppression is systematized within education; social structures deny any conscious thought of moral laws for animals.

In his article “Wild Justice”, Marc Bekoff (2010) describes human behaviour toward animals as “self-serving anthropocentric speciesism” since human beings continue to believe themselves to be the only moral beings deserving of freedom (p. 75). Participant Y describes an empathetic shift in consciousness that is partly self-serving yet morally attuned to the denial of sentient rights,

...if I set them free they don’t have any skills (Uses right hand to emphasize point); they were raised in a lab so they don’t have any skills for survival on the outside and I can’t set them free…(Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013).

Where Participant Y once held firm to a total liberation ethos for animals (“empty cages not bigger cages”), he has had to reconsider his position on whether to cage the rescued mice. Participant Y’s behaviour reflects the moral inconsistencies surrounding animal experimentation (and ‘open rescue’), where species membership designates human beings as subjects worthy of freedom and mice as objects worthy of confinement. In spite of his moral dilemma at having to re-confine the rescued mice in cages, Participant Y continues to empathize and care for the animals having adopted a “welfarist position… in order to ensure their well-being” (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013). In this case, sentient empathy designates the kind of liberation best suited for mice. Absent of sentient consciousness, moral behaviour continues to

57

be subjugated under strict codes of species membership, especially when patented transgenic mice, whose ‘identity’, ‘genealogies’ and ‘group continuity’ are continually erased in what Canadian anthropologist Margaret Lock (2001) describes as uncontrolled “globalized commodity fetishism” (p. 67).

A student’s lack of empathy toward animals arises when animal bodies at the site of production are impersonalized from the sites of consumption; “they’ve already devalued animals… and say that animals are inferior” declares Participant Y (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013). Even with the advancement of sentient rights, particularly laws granting animals “personhood”, detractors decry the humanization of animal behavior as it would allow animals (and their allies) to claim abuse, stress, depression and loss of life at sites of consumption (and production).

As a way of resisting the devaluation of animals as mere objects of consumption, each participant engages in moral behaviour that empathizes with animals as subjects-of-a- life, choosing non-violent legal routes to rescue animals. Participant Y does not break into university laboratories, but chooses instead to,

put out a flyer at the Faculty of Medicine, on every floor, saying that ahh…if you’re finished with the animals your testing on and you don’t need to kill them, please donate them to me (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013).

In choosing to do no harm to people, animals and the environment, Participant NU undertakes a rescue of a young dog without even entering a research facility,

An employee of the university, C. was responsible for unloading the dogs and housing them within the university….C. asked me as I was leaving the school if I would be able to take one of the puppies. …the moment I rescued her, she became "someone"… She became the real face of all the nameless, animals out there that suffer at the hands of humans (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013).

Participant NU counters the devaluation of animals as "nameless, faceless" numbers describing how falling in love with a rescued puppy helped her become morally accountable to other animals,

58

She served as a reminder of the way that our actions can change the fate of other living beings, and that we can make choices every day that can have that kind of impact…. Becoming a vegan was a similar experience for me (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013).

Correspondingly, Participant K stresses his non-violent intentions when conducting several animal rescues, “[w]e negotiate with labs through a friendly inside contact, usually a laboratory veterinarian or a lab technician. They try to convince the “higher-ups” to…negotiate the release of animals” (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014).

Enabling non-violent, life-affirming choices helps to counter the devaluation of animals as well as the vilification of open rescuers. Participant K is more than a conscientious observer of animal suffering; his moral actions underscore a deep love of animals that was nurtured at an early age when caring for beagles. Describing the rescue of beagles from laboratories, Participant K has a visceral response when animals are liberated from cages, “I am passionate about this…seeing their emotional and physical scars...it’s heart-warming watching them experiencing joy. You realize that - “I can’t hurt these animals.” …My conscience asks me to take action” (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014).

Without destroying property or breaking laws, each participant enables “open rescues” at sites of consumption, illustrating how moral behaviour - as a life-affirming choice - is re-constituted into sentient empathy. Stories of ‘open rescue’ advance moral precepts that affirm sentient empathy in contrast to positivist discourses that are historically situated to deny it. Importantly, the personal experiences of open rescuers works against, what Arendt and Geertz call “truth cults” (as cited in Dillabough, 2008, p. 189) – those experimenters, lobbying groups, media, and universities that exaggerate the role that animal experiments play in past medical advances, which is also refuted by mainstream animal rights groups. Erasing personal experiences with animals becomes an integral means of dividing passive subjects from active objects, allowing the speciesist status quo to maintain itself (Williams, 2001). In a revealing passage, Participant Y subverts this speciesist paradigm by interacting with mice as active subjects,

having a mouse in your hand (Holds right palm upright and places left hand into right palm keeping it there for a moment) and playing with him for a little bit and try to… trying (Gestures both hands back and forth) em… empathizing with the conditions

59

that they, they live under… the life of a mouse (Participant Y makes a fleeting hand gesture while nodding his head) in, ahh, city is…is pretty brutal…this experience with them (Rotates hands to make the final point) has made me aware of that (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013).

From Participant Y’s disclosure, playing with a mouse is the kind of transformative behaviour that validates sentient consciousness as it recognizes that mice are subjects’ worthy-of-a-life (Regan, 1983). In doing so, Participant Y subverts the speciesist contention that students must detach themselves from and devalue animal lives to gain scientific efficacy.

Citing the need to build sentient empathy to combat speciesism, Participant K offers a glimpse of his behaviour toward animals,

We don’t live in a theocracy; legal distinctions need to be recognized…. Animals are not chattel and are not objects….Animals have sentience—the capacity to feel pain and recognize that sensation by communicating in a number of ways… (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2013).

In contemplating the merits of sentient empathy, Participant K resists speciesist attempts to devalue animals and invalidate moral action to end animal testing.

You cannot disregard that they are living beings and have value independent of any financial worth. That is how we can build empathy for animals as it provides motivation for you in your teaching and it builds empathy through the work that I do (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014).

By advocating for sentient empathy and rights protection for animals, open rescuers join a growing chorus of animal rights activists who want to extend equivalent legal rights to animals as “non-human persons” (Bekoff, 1998; Cavalieri, 2001; Cochrane, 2014; Gary, 2012; McNeil Jr., 2008; Singer, 2008; Tooley, 2012; Waldau, 2011). Describing captive animals as persons in a “philosophic sense”, the Association of Professional Lawyers for Animal Rights (AFADA, year)2 argues that, “the unjustified confinement of an animal with probable cognitive capability”

2 In a historic judgement in late 2014, Argentina’s Second Chamber of the Criminal Appeals Court unanimously granted habeas corpus to , a Sumatran , allowing her release from an Argentinian . Declaring her a “juridical person” (I.e. a non-human entity, like a corporation, that possesses the legal status of personhood), the court recognized that being kept in a zoo unlawfully deprived Sandra of her freedom. AFADA lawyer Paul Buompadre maintained that the Second Chamber’s decision is precedent setting as it, “…opens the way not only for

60

(Bird, 2014, para. 6) illegally deprives a “non-human person” of their freedom (Bird, 2014; Giménez, 2015).

From my research, the experiential findings of open rescuers directly challenge speciesist behaviour by unifying a life affirming consciousness with moral behaviour. Subsequently, by adapting ‘open rescue’ testimonials into research-informed scripts, I illustrate how sentient empathy can fill in moral gaps that previously separated behaviour from an empathetic consciousness.

Beyond Behaviour: To Do-No-Harm

After coding all the interview responses, life-affirming themes, like sentient empathy and animal compassion predominated over life-denying themes. As a result, the affirmation of life influenced the behaviour of all three rescuers. Moreover, I found a strong relationship between the respondents’ level of anguish and each rescuers determination to do-no-harm to animals.

When respondents experienced traumatic events (and processed that grief), it also stirred reflective actions that lessened the suffering of animals. In her interview, Participant NU wrote that both animals and students were being harmed at her university,

[t]o learn surgical skills, veterinary students are required to perform unnecessary surgeries on research dogs. The dogs are subjected to inexperienced surgeons and possible complications. They are recovered from surgery, and each week subjected to another surgery, until they are used in a termination surgery that ends with their . This is a classic example of the use of animals for research that causes tremendous harm to the animal. I believe it also causes harm to the students required to participate by gradually desensitizing them to the suffering of non-human animals (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013).

Later in the interview, Participant NU revealed her state of mind after discovering what the university was doing to dogs. She said, “I think I needed to…block out what was happening to the other dogs that were in that truck. I think I needed to protect myself from the awareness of

other Great [to gain personhood], but also for other sentient beings which are unfairly and arbitrarily deprived of their liberty in zoos, , water parks and scientific laboratories.” Click: http://www.care2.com/causes/landmark-ruling-an-orangutan-is-a-non-human-person-with-rights-says-argentina.html

61

the enormity of what was happening at that university, and beyond…” (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013).

As just one student against a post-secondary structure of speciesist indoctrination, Participant NU not only felt alienated on campus, but also emotionally tormented by invasive surgeries upon animals. As author (2010) points out in “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows: An Introduction to ”, when a person witness’s animal suffering, he/she actually sees themselves as the victim which is why the act of witnessing can be so painful.

Participant NU mimics the behaviour of the other respondents – she witnesses animal suffering, which is essential toward establishing sentient empathy. What Participant NU observes becomes the basis of a constructive dialogue about animal testing and what can be done to resist apathetic behaviour that desensitizes the viewer from animal suffering. Free From Harm (2012) contends that the best way to break through the apathy barrier is to bear witness to the truth as a process of evaluating societal values and beliefs against new knowledge.

When confronted with the truth that her university kills animals for research, Participant NU despairs inwardly, emotionally blocking out what was happening to the dogs. Yet, Participant NU ultimately rejects apathy, choosing instead to rescue a small dog from the research facility. The respondents’ anguish is matched by her determination to do-no-harm to at least one dog; grief awakens compassionate and empathic behaviour. Such behaviour invites further dialogue: Participant NU wonders whether “incentives” are in place to change an entrenched system of murdering animals for research.

One respondent’s anguish matched his determination to ‘do-no-harm’ to animals. Participant K makes it his “prime motivation” to actively organize rescue missions into research facilities to save as many animals as possible. The respondent’s compassionate and empathic behaviour reflects a bigger part of his outer world after adopting two rescued animals. Participant K stated, “I have two new family members—J***** and R******. I am not their owner as I don’t like calling them my pets…I share a life with them” (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014).

62

A greater commitment to “share a life” with animals parallels the level of torment Participant K has had to endure. Similarly, Participant Y describes his conversion to do-no-harm after sharing “a lot of sadness” with rescued mice,

…it’s really made me question that whole phrase “empty cages not bigger cages” and sort of… ensure their well-being. And I’ve had to really think about what is in their best interests and modify my views a little bit (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013).

Likewise, Participant NU made personal choices that “do not cause harm” after discovering “millions of animals suffer” because of animal ‘research’. NU continues,

I was a bit shell-shocked…to find out that shipments of dogs arrived at backdoors of the university, purchased from shelters that were overloaded with animals, to be used in research projects, to find out that animals were used as teaching tools and discarded (i.e. euthanized) when they were no longer needed (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013).

Each respondent experiences some form of trauma after observing animal suffering and they process that pain by committing to behaviour that reduces the suffering of other animals. Participant K offsets the trauma of animal suffering by getting closer to animals, “I share a life with them. They are there when you are down. They provide entertainment….they’re funny. What dogs provide to you is pretty obvious…” (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014). By getting closer to animals, Participant K considers himself a “guardian” rather than a “ owner,” reflecting behaviour where mutual co-existence supplants speciesist notions of human dominion over animals.

From electronic transcripts, Participant NU describes the “helplessness” of knowing how animals are treated in laboratories. And with that awareness, Participant NU gained a “tremendous sense of empowerment” after rescuing a ‘research’ dog. Describing her actions as “changing the fate” of a living being, Participant NU made a spontaneous choice to save an animal thrust into her arms maintaining that, “…from the moment I rescued her, she become "someone" (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013). Participant NU’s reaction to a life or death decision is telling; she seizes the moment because sentient empathy defines a powerful urge to affirm life. Reflecting on the enormity of what was happening to animals at her university, Participant NU forges a path of meaning through the trauma she bears witness to,

63

I think that rescuing B**** was a tipping point. She became the real face of all the nameless, faceless animals out there that suffer at the hands of humans…she was simply a number, a homeless puppy in a shelter, sold to a university, slated to become a research dog (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013).

Participant NU’s fateful revelation and her spontaneous decision to save an animal’s life counters the apathetic narrative that our personal choices make no difference in . In fact, getting closer to animals and educating oneself about their plight has a powerful impact on the respondent’s behaviour. By attuning oneself to sentient empathy, ‘open rescue’ provides a cathartic path through the pain and trauma of animal testing, allowing rescuers to contemplate life-affirming choices in an academic culture that denies life.

Similarly, Participant Y subscribes to a restorative notion of harmony with sentient beings and an awareness of the “brutal” plight of animals on campus. Convinced that harmful experiments on animals were not predictive of human physiology, Participant Y organized a series of free events and weekly lectures on animal rights to counter student apathy and devaluation of sentient life on campus. As Participant Y shares in his interview, “I brought Dr. Ray Greek here to elaborate on that [efficacy of animal testing]… He was the foremost expert in the world on this issue” (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013).Within the life-denying confines of academia, Participant Y challenges the positivist discourse surrounding animal testing, by organizing an on-campus animal rights club to educate students about their right to refuse animal testing. During weekly vigils in front of university medical science complexes, Participant Y distributed thousands of information flyers entitled “Did you know…” which states:

You don’t have to on animals. The University, its administration, professors and employees, are PROHIBITED FROM PUNISHING YOU for enforcing your rights….THE UNIVERSITY MUST REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE YOU if you refuse to experiment on animals because doing so runs contrary to your system of principles and beliefs (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013).

Participant Y not only rescues mice from university laboratories, but organizes direct action to educate fellow students about their political right to resist harming animals. Participant Y develops a vibrant counter-narrative where information, political activism, and networking with anti-vivisectionists inspire social change. In doing so, Canadian students, like myself, become

64

more engaged, active and informed about animal testing on university campuses. On a personal level, Participant Y provided mentorship and comfort to many students who had ethical concerns about harming animals. Participant Y contends that, as animals ourselves, “…we have a moral responsibility” to protect other animals from invasive research experiments (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013).

Seeking answers to ethical concerns about animal testing may win debates but the behaviour of open rescuers is a clear indication that life-affirming decisions are made when sentient empathy is realized. Each respondent experiences some form of trauma after observing animal suffering and by bearing witness to that pain, the respondents are empowered, and able to educate themselves and others about harmful scientific research taking place on campus. Additionally, each respondent became emotionally drawn to animals (including human beings) given the animal suffering they had all witnessed. From the data, each respondent engaged in the preservation of life, refusing to withdraw from the suffering that surrounded them. By initiating life-affirming behaviour (instead of life-denying behaviour), animal suffering was reduced.

As a result, a psycho-emotional link can be made between participants’ trauma and a common humanity that they all shared to avoid harming animals. As university educated, politically- minded animal rescuers, the respondents’ personal grief characterizes a prevailing benevolence among human beings – the ability to be compassionate and empathetic to oppressed beings because we expect others to react similarly.

When I analyzed Participant Y’s transcription, I got a clearer sense of his shared humanity, particularly his analogy of animal testing as “evil”, comparing it to the barbarity that took place in Nazi concentration camps,

we shouldn’t discriminate…based on species …that’s just as bad as discriminating based on race, so using unwilling test subjects against their will and causing egregious harm to them, ahhh, in that way is, ahhh, evil. It’s no better than what the Nazi’s were doing -- Dr. Mengele was doing -- in Auschwitz (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013).

When transcribing Participant Y’s kinetic and auditory responses, a reflective behaviour is apparent, expressed in mournful contemplation about mice that had died under his care. His

65

words and actions reveal reflective behaviour when he states, “Ahhmmm, and…and I’ve also, uhmm, (Swallows hard) experienced a lot of, ahh, sadness (Head bows; eyes barely open) and, over their… the fact that three of them died (Prolonged pause)… and what a tragic hard life it is for a mouse…” (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013). A shared humanity is reflected in each respondent’s behaviour toward the physical welfare of sentient beings. Each participant describes the tragic circumstances surrounding animal research. They then react to it by getting closer to that suffering, demanding compassion, empathy and protection from animal testing. Moreover, the participants’ joy at having to care for a rescued animal illustrates a common understanding that when an animal is in distress, human beings should respond urgently, either by expressing sentient empathy or performing an ‘open rescue.’

The respondents’ moral perspective falls in line with a feminist ethic-of-care approach (Gilligan, 2008) where questioning "what is just?" is instead replaced with "how to respond?" This ethic of care response is best illustrated in Participant Y’s comments and observation of body language,

…having a mouse in your hand (Holds right palm upright and places left hand into right palm keeping it there for a moment) and playing with him for a little bit and try to… trying (Gestures both hands back and forth) em… empathizing with the conditions that they, they live under (Leaning against the wall holding out the right hand from chest). I mean in the lab their injected with cancer and other brutal…their, ahhh, chron…their subject to chronic pain experiments and then the researcher breaks their neck after the experiments…so the lab is not a good thing… this experience with them (rotates hands to make the final point) has made me aware of that (participant faintly nods head and returns to leaning on the wall) (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013).

Seconds later, Participant Y shows his bodily discomfort by bending forward to scratch his right leg for several seconds. Participant Y does the only benevolent thing he can think of – reduce the suffering of mice by taking them home. The personal grief and discomforting reality surrounding animal research characterizes a prevailing benevolence among the respondents to ‘do-no-harm’ to animals. Yet, when I observed Participant Y, his body language presents a revealing discord within my data findings. After reviewing the videotaped interview, I noted Participant Y’s tactile responses (contemplative gestures and impulsive scratches) as well as distinct speech patterns (pauses, stutters, broken words and phrases). The respondent’s physicality and speech patterns

66

were dissimilar to the other two respondents, who were not videotaped. I will briefly analyse this discordance so that it may shed light on uncertain meanings.

Discussion of Behaviour Theme: Attuning to Private Grief

When Participant Y reviewed the interview transcript, he relayed his discomfort at the specificity of detail included alongside his remarks, specifically those entries about his kinesthetic manner and modes of speech. I reassured him that detailed transcripts were required to develop a scripted character for a research-informed theatre piece I was creating (Appendix A: Play One). Noting his apparent concern, I told him I was prepared to delete the compromising text if it made him feel uncomfortable. Participant Y felt that this was unnecessary, though I sensed his uneasiness at the thoroughness of my transcription notes, particularly, pauses and stutters in the transcript notes where Participant Y observes a dying mouse. Participant Y’s concern about the exactness of the transcription notes was not an issue among the other participants. This dissimilarity in my research findings highlights the vulnerability and anguish that Participant Y continues to feel even after the initial rescue. His behaviour reveals a vulnerable rawness to the realist perceptions that confront him in the transcriptions, similar to looking into a mirror that reflects another mirror. The reflection of oneself has infinite possibilities and the behaviour of each participant has infinite meanings when it is rehashed, retold and re-analyzed at different periods in time (Richardson, 2000). Invariably, my detailed notes reveal an awkwardness and vulnerability that Participant Y was not yet ready to share with the outside world. By highlighting similar and dissimilar truths in my research findings, qualitative research is reflective of the changing (and static) realm of human behaviour, maintaining an authentic adequacy of the powerful lived experiences of open rescuers. The data discordance illustrates the potential risks and ruptures that transcript authenticity brings to the ethnographic research process, particularly when a respondent’s private grief and respective behaviour is brought out into the open or rendered realist theatre fodder so that a wider audience can be attuned to sentient empathy.

Discussion of Behaviour Theme: Respondents Take Action

I want to revisit the moral complexities within the data that restrain (or encourage) the building of sentient empathy. Participant Y describes how the ‘open rescue’ of mice exposes a grey area

67

concerning the right of an animal to be free while simultaneously making the same animal vulnerable to the predatory avails of the natural world (I.e. vivisectionists, , landlords, harsh climate and mice themselves). US educator Deborah Meier (1996) believes that empathy toward sentient beings begins by imaging how the world might look from different perspectives. Meier (1996) explains this imaging perspective as a willingness among concerned citizens to suspend belief long enough to entertain ideas contrary to our own,

…our ideas are forever "in progress," unfinished, and incomplete. But it also depends on our developing the habit of stepping into the shoes of others-both intellectually and emotionally. We need to be able to experience, if even for a short time, the ideas, feelings, pains, and mindsets of others, even when doing so creates discomfort...and to do so requires rigorous and continuous schooling directed toward precisely such an end. Learning empathy is not a "soft" subject; it is the hardest one of all. It must marry imagination and scholarship (p. 272).

From the transcript, Participant Y describes his uneasiness at having to cage mice once they had been rescued from the university laboratory. The moral constraints of ‘open rescue’ upend the respondent’s personal beliefs: a-damned-if-he-does, damned-if-he-doesn’t quandary that emotionally and intellectually challenges previously held suppositions.

In referring to himself as an abolitionist (“empty cages not bigger cages”), Participant Y feels discomfort empathizing with the conditions that mice live under because, as he painfully made the interviewer aware, the life of a city mouse is “pretty brutal”. An aspect of rigorous schooling must consider lives outside of ours and ways of building openness and solidarity with oppressed animals. Participant Y’s moral dilemma is not a “soft” subject to gloss over as it exposes us to the harsh reality of sentient lives.

As a researcher and educator, I never thought that I would ever have to contemplate the harsh facing mice when I first began this research project. Moreover, I did not suspect my education was somehow, in Meier’s (1996) words, “incomplete”. But it was lacking as I had not begun the required “imaging” outside of my own experiences, specifically, stepping into the shoes of animals held captive and killed in university laboratories. Our natural inclination to empathize seems not to extend beyond our own natural ties, rather it stops long before we are made to feel uncomfortable (Meier, 1996).

68

In like manner, Participant NU describes her distress when she discovers “what was happening” to animals at the university, especially the involvement of fellow students in lethal experiments. Participant NU’s "imaging" of how the world looks from different perspectives is revealing,

I had recently started attending the university, and was only just starting to realize that research was even taking place at the university. I entered the university as a quite naive student, believing that everyone who was part of the veterinary college was an "animal-lover” (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013).

Experiencing the speciesist mindset of her peers allows Participant NU to strengthen her resolve to subvert the status quo around animal research. By rescuing a dog from eventual death, the respondent’s continuous schooling is directed toward learning sentient empathy.

Individually, Participant K did not seem to traverse this grey area where personal beliefs were suspended. The respondent’s testimony continually affirmed the lives of ‘research’ animals, particularly distinctions of rights for animals. As a representative of the Freedom Project, Participant K illustrates a steadfast determination to do everything in his collective power to legally rescue animals explaining,

we recognize their cognitive capacity, especially their ability to suffer and feel pain…. I believe animals are subjects-of-a-life…rather than animals deserving rights. Beagle Freedom Project…negotiate[s] the release of animals. I have participated in 22 rescues and helped save 175 animals. One hundred and fifty of those animals were beagles—(Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014).

Educated as a political scientist, Participant K displays a “broader context of social justice and history” that enables him to challenge the speciesist notions of the interviewer. When I asked him how animals can trust human beings after what they had endured, Participant K responded that animals have “the resiliency to overlook their past wounds” and it is our human-centric notion of forgiveness that prevents us from identifying similar traits in other animal species. Participant K conferred that once animals realize we won’t hurt them “they embrace their new life” (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014).

Compared to Participant Y, the absence of moral ambiguity in Participant K’s answers may confirm his strong affirmation of life, particularly his empathy for rescued beagles. By advocating for “legal distinctions” that would grant dogs freedom after experimentation,

69

Participant K furthers an emancipatory discourse that challenges a speciesist superstructure because it was “who I am”. Participant K reveals that at a young age, he identified with animals explaining,

[m]y conscience asks me to take action. I am passionate about this because while I was growing up, I had beagles as pets. Beagles are clever, stubborn, gentle little dogs…as people–pleasers, they are forgiving, docile and are great family members (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014).

In an article entitled “Research Traces Altruism in Toddlers”, US psychologists confirm that a child’s empathy towards animals is directly related to parental attitudes that either reinforce or negate animal empathy. US researchers also found that children can fixate on another's distress much earlier than most cognitive psychologists previously believed, at around 18 months (Zalm- Waxler & Raie-Yarrow, 1984). So much so, that Participant K’s awareness of empathy at an early age matured into a consciousness that confidently leads others to “take action.” Because it is “who I am”, Participant K’s composite character (“Pat”) builds upon Participant K’s strong sense of duty.

In my ethnographic script (Appendix C – Play Three), my character “Pat” builds upon Participant K’s strong sense of duty when he leads a liberationist vanguard, where cultural awareness of speciesism drives successful on-line campaigns and legislative feats, that help to change societal behaviour towards animals. When developing the composite character (“Pat”), I appropriated Participant K’s "imaging" of how the world might look from his rights-based perspective. I enhanced the respondent’s concerns by applying a legislative framework wherein the affirmation of sentient rights (I.e. right to live, freedom of association, freedom from pain, freedom from harmful experimentation) became one of the driving themes throughout the script.

Intentionally, I refrained from extending rights-based “imaging” to Participant Y’s composite character (“Rita Shresthowser”). Participant Y appeared unnerved when embracing the new life of rescued mice: should they be set free to roam, held captive in cages or adopted out as pets? Instead, I applied an ethic of care perspective that guided the researched informed script concerning Participant Y’s ‘open rescue’ of mice. I also changed the character’s gender as Participant Y reminded me of a female colleague in university who faithfully cared for animals.

70

By inferring from the words and actions of the open-rescuers, certain behaviours, language and the potential tension between what they do and ought to do becomes apparent (Spradley, 1980).

Theme 2: Language

Participant K makes a case for sentient neutral language: instead of an ‘owner’ calling animals his/her ‘pets’, a “guardian” now shares a life with family members. Participant K allows emancipatory knowledge to alter his sentient worldview, which can also be interpreted as an anti-capitalist critique, when he states,

[t]his standard language is favoured now… animals are not chattel and are not objects. You cannot disregard that they are living beings and have value independent of any financial worth (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014).

Participant K touches on the contradictions hidden or distorted by everyday understandings, like humans have more subjective value than animals or animals are inferior because they are emotionally bereft. In order to create social transformation between animal species, emancipatory knowledge, like sentient neutrality, challenge the status quo around animal testing. It has made me aware of the sentient specific language I use on a daily basis (“pet”, “owner”, “research animal” and “non-human animal”) allowing me to contextualize it and correct it when writing my ethnographic scripts.

I will examine the power of language within my research data, and how it maintains or resists a unifying discourse. From the data I analyzed, respondents’ reactions to animal testing revealed a language of trauma (i.e.” heart-wrenching”; “nightmarish”; “emotional and physical scars”), at odds with positivist (Bekoff, 2006). An analysis of the ‘open rescue’ interviews reveals a life denying (“LD”) language that is centered on scientific and bio-medical experiments that kill animals.

Interview data also suggests a predominance of life-affirming (“LA”) words that enable sentient empathy. Digging deeper, I deconstructed participants’ motives for rescuing animals from “tremendous harm”, focusing on how anti-oppressive language (i.e. life affirming words like “welfarist”, “compassion” and “animal rights”) promotes sentient empathy. As I discovered,

71

unpacking language became a powerful tool for exposing, not only how animals are made disposable, but how ‘do-no-harm’ responses among open rescuers resist speciesism.

Language as a Fabric of Conjunctions: And, And and And

“A rhizome has no beginning or end; it is always in the middle, between things, interbeing, intermezzo. The tree is filiation, but the rhizome is alliance, uniquely alliance. The tree imposes the verb ‘to be’, but the fabric of the rhizome is the conjunction, "and...and...and..." This conjunction carries enough forces to shake and uproot the verb ‘to be’…” (Deleuze & Guattari 1987, p. 27-28).

By focusing on data that illuminates the ‘lacking’ body within animal research, I will highlight the conjunctive “and” within the transcript responses. Using the example of a rhizome (plant shoots that grow horizontally under or along the ground) to symbolize a unifying “and”, I will try to identify alliances (Carmody Hagood, 2004) around a single possibility, that of ‘open rescue’ as a space of embodied resistance.

By analyzing the potential for rhizomes in stories of ‘open rescue’, multiple entryways are conceived allowing for the development of pedagogies as 'becoming' rather than as 'being'. This opens up, what disability theorist Dan Goodley (2007) describes as resistant spaces and potential territories of social justice, yet all of them are uncertain. As a means of affirming the body- becoming, Goodley (2007) uses Deleuze & Guattari’s critique of the socially constructed body to advocate for a socially-just pedagogy that weaves a rhizomatic fabric of conjunctions ( ‘and …and … and …’) that can uproot the singularly rooted ‘to be’ body . For example, those medicalized linear narratives of bodies based on a discourse of disease-pathology.

I refer back to the comments of Participant Y,

…having a mouse in your hand and playing with him for a little bit and try to… trying em… empathizing with the conditions that they, they live under. I mean in the lab they’re injected with cancer and other brutal…their, ahhh, chron…they’re subject to chronic pain experiments and then the researcher breaks their neck after the experiments…so the lab is not a good thing… (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013).

If rhizomes are made up of a multiplicity of lines that extend in all directions that break off, but then begin again, either where they were before, or on a new line, then the conjunctive

72

arrangement of language, specifically the word “and” in Participant Y’s quote is an important place to start. When I deconstruct the conjunctive phrasing of Participant Y’s response, he describes holding a mouse, playing with it, empathizing with its suffering, and then goes on to detail how unfortunate it is when they are killed in labs by researchers.

If there is an entryway to body ‘becoming’ in Participant Y’s response, it can be found at the beginning of the interview when I ask him if animals should have rights that protect them from harm (i.e. chronic pain experiments or a researcher breaking a mouse’s neck). The ‘flawed’ body of a mouse is re-territorialized as a ‘becoming’ body (Gregoriou, 2004), when Participant Y affirms “Yes” to my question, explaining,

and, ahhh…there’s usual…there’s usually two arguments as to why animal testing should end. The first argument is that…ahhh…it’s a scientific argument, that it’s…animal testing is not predictive for humans…ahhh, and… (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013).

At this moment in the interview, Participant Y is interrupted from his train of thought by extraneous noise outside of the camera’s frame. But by ending at “and”, the conjunction acts as a rhizome that is not singularly rooted but multiplies, which is interlinked with the second part of his answer (“the ethical argument…we have a moral responsibility”) and from there, is essentially ever growing (“There’s a utilitarian argument…). By empathizing with the suffering of mice and undertaking their ‘open rescue’, Participant Y allows for a rhizomatic happening that uproots the ‘to be’ body, paralyzing its speciesist production, creating a space of embodied resistance.

Correspondingly, Participant K uses rhizomes as entryways to create a space of empathy for ‘lacking’ bodies (i.e. beagles) within animal research,

animals are not chattel and are not objects. You cannot disregard that they are living beings and have value independent of any financial worth. That is how we can build empathy for animals as it provides motivation for you in your teaching and it builds empathy through the work that I do. And I think they deserve extra care for what they’ve endured (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2013).

Analyzing the data, the highlighted “and” is symbolic of rhizomes which make up a multiplicity of lines that extend in many directions. Pinpointing the conjunctive (dis)order, Participant K

73

uproots the verb ‘to be’ when he rejects animal commodification for sentient autonomy. He then breaks off by stating informed empathy in education will better serve teachers and then begins again on a new line of thought by explaining how research animals deserve our compassion. The splitting of thoughts and words engages empathy alongside sentient learning. A rhizomatic happening weaves away at ‘becoming animal’, resisting speciesist forms of segregation that often ‘other out’ sentience from pedagogy.

In reminding researchers and educators of the disjunctive force of rhizomes to uproot discourse, Deleuze & Guattari (1987) warn of the over-rationalization of ‘weaving’ conclusions, because any point of a rhizome can and has to be connected to anything other. Subsequently, being rhyzomatic involves the principles of heterogeneity, the production of composites and a language that reflects its own essential ‘disparateness’ and improvisational character. This language is not closed in but “a writing of ‘the people’ not the ‘experts’’’ which “must engage substantive multiplicities and not allow itself to be over-coded into formal unities, binarisms which synthesis into totalities, and so on. To write [or to live] is to ‘weave’’’ (Deluze & Guttari, 1987, p. 7).

Reviewing the transcript notes from Participant NU helped me resist over-coding “into formal unities” and “binarisms” which try to replicate the sum of the whole. Participant NU describes a dialogic practice that allows for a compassionate space of embodied resistance. Commenting on the notion of animal rights, Participant NU writes,

I tend to phrase a lot of my dialogue around an ethic of compassion, of one of doing no harm to people, animals and the environment. I try and make personal choices that do not cause harm, and in conversation with others, I try to focus on this aspect. In context of research, I would focus on the notion that amazing research can happen without animal testing. If research can be accomplished without causing harm, why wouldn't we choose that avenue? (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013).

From the data, the highlighted “and” symbolizes rhizomes which make up a horizontal line that extends in one direction and then returns back to itself. When I untangled this conjunctive (dis)arrangement, I noted that Participant NU uprooted the verb ‘to be’ when she revealed her moral code to do-no-harm to others, and then restated her virtuous character again and again. She then broke off from that line of thought to affirm research alternatives (“research can happen without animal testing”) and then reaffirmed its necessity, circling back using an interrogative

74

line of thought (”why wouldn’t we choose that avenue?”) that conforms to her ‘do-no harm’ moral code.

From my observations, rhizomes are more than just horizontal here; the commixture of “and’s” seeks to territorialize the ‘becoming’ body around a new lack – a lack of compassion - that must be enlarged by a personal moral choice. Participant NU’s language reflects its own improvisational character and, as an ethnographer, I found it difficult to pin-point given the lack of a signifier word like “empathy”, which the respondent never referred to in any of her responses.

Feminists who practice an ethic-of-care approach criticize the application of universal standards as morally problematic, since it breeds moral indifference. Participant NU’s data abstraction, where empathy is not mentioned, points to the risk of over-coding language in order to determine conclusive themes within ethnographic research (i.e. ‘open rescue’ as a site of sentient resistance). Additionally, rhizomatic spaces of resistance pose an uncertain arena for social justice, recalling Participant Y’s ‘open rescue’ conundrum with the re-caged mice and Participant K’s insistence that, “we don’t do open rescue.”

Language of Empowerment: Sentient Beings Made Stronger and Confident

As a critical ethnographer, I addressed issues of inequality, dominance, oppression and empowerment in my research (Creswell, 2007, p. 71). Feminist educator Janet Miller (1998) believes that the power of autobiographical narratives can challenge dominant discourses that normalize conceptions of the coherent self and the cultural scripts that define that self. In order to reconstitute that world, Miller (1998) contends that self-knowing stories must change “…what it means ‘to be’ or ‘to become’ a teacher, or a student, or a researcher” (p. 152). Re-visualizing sentience cannot happen by retelling the same old stories of the self, especially if it repeats the descriptive identity categories of “animal,” or “species.” Holding to Miller’s argument, my ethnographic transcriptions reconceive what a sentient body can become, allowing for a “startling defamiliarization of the ordinary” (Maxine, 1995, p. 4). I believe that interviews about ‘open rescue’ enlarge our capacity to imagine what it is like to suffer, and, in turn, mobilize a counter-narrative that empowers sentient liberation in our schools and universities.

75

From her written response, Participant NU offers a counter-narrative that overcomes the distressing aspects of sentient oppression. As a student in a university that practices vivisection, she reconstitutes her world by highlighting how the ‘open rescue’ of a female dog became personally empowering,

…acknowledging that millions of animals suffer because of animal research does not mean that I am helpless to that awareness. Rescuing a research dog gave me a tremendous sense of empowerment. She served as a reminder of the way that our actions can change the fate of other living beings, and that we can make choices every day that can have that kind of impact (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013).

Participant NU’s self-reflexive insight not only questions the validity of a dominant discourse around animal research but also counters it with a passionate, personal activism. By acting alone, she refused to accept the notion that one person cannot impact the lives of animals in distress. Participant NU is adamant that her act of ‘open rescue’ was a legitimate response to a persistent culture of speciesist domination at her school.

American anthropologist Margaret Mead (2000) believed that all social movements were founded by, guided by, motivated and actualized by the passion of individuals. Participant NU identified unacceptable notions of speciesist research and agitated for a counter-cultural response where individual action could, “…change the fate of other living beings.” Mead (2000) contends that culture is the primary determinant for individual character formation, so much so, that activists should never depend upon institutions or government to solve any problem.

In the same defamiliarizing vain, Participant Y describes how a personal choice to prevent the killing of mice informed his character allowing for moral empowerment,

I simply put out a flyer at the Faculty of Medicine, on every floor, saying that ahh…if you’re finished with the animals your testing on and you don’t need to kill them, please donate them to me – I will find homes for them (Interview with Participant Y: 2 March, 2013).

After following up on two email responses, Participant Y was able to save eight mice from imminent death. By questioning the taken-for-granted belief that mice had to be euthanized after testing, Participant Y circumvented institutional authority. Participant Y touches on the

76

interconnected nature of social categorizations like ‘species’ as it applies to both human and non- human animals. When a speciesist culture devalues sentience, it robs human beings of morality as well since it denies non-human animals’ rights that, we as animals ourselves, depend upon. Consequently, one act of ‘open rescue’ lends value to the lives of animals because, as Participant Y eloquently states, as animals ourselves, “…we have a moral responsibility” to do something as it inversely benefits human beings.

Where speciesism creates overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination, an awareness of intersectionality grounds the differences among animals, including human beings. Participant Y enlarges our ethical capacity to value sentience by presenting a counter-narrative: a moral responsibility to protect life (a human right) is advanced when we enable the sentient rights of others, like mice and rats. Thus, a conception of ourselves (human beings as moral animals) is redefined when we unchain sentience rather than subjugate it and then flip the cultural script, which acknowledges a liberating commonality among living beings.

As a spokesperson for the Beagle Freedom Project, Participant K is in a unique position to advance an empowering narrative that collectively challenges the moral authority of university researchers. In disputing speciesist distinctions that determine who must suffer (and die), Participant K confronts what it means “to be” a scientist,

I believe the question shouldn’t be whether animals should or shouldn’t be exploited for human research. The argument should be directed toward those who want to use them. So when scientists say we should be able to exploit others so that humans can benefit, are we saying we are more intelligent than them? (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2013).

Correspondingly, when questioning the deficit-thinking model of scientists whom normalize conceptions of the body, Participant Y alludes to the marginal cases argument when asking and comparing who should be harmed, “… what about disabled people…should they be exploited too?” In answering the question, Participant Y argues that the ability to feel pain reflects sentience. He states “we don’t live in a theocracy; legal distinctions need to be recognized. Animals have sentience, the capacity to feel pain and recognize that sensation by communicating in a number of ways (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013).

77

Participant K de-familiarizes the argument for vivisection by questioning how saving human lives at the expense of animal lives is any less exploitative than experimenting on people with disabilities. This language reminds me of Participant Y’s citation of the marginal cases argument when addressing Nazi experiments performed on “mentally retarded human beings”, deeming such research to be “morally offensive” (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013). Allowing for concrete anti-oppressive practices as “strategies that work” (Kumashiro, 2001, p. 3), the respondents draw upon theoretical language from critical animal and disability theory.

In enlarging our capacity to imagine what it is like to suffer, I question culturally coded modes of thought and behaviour that define sentience. Research responses that compare the death of mice to the killing of disabled persons or prisoners in Nazi concentration camps would be considered morally offensive to some. Likewise, comparing caged animals to Africans enslaved by European slave-traders could also be interpreted as racist. Thus, in defamiliarizing ourselves from the dominant discourse, I believe we must resist language that re-affirms oppressive narratives – no matter how noble our intentions. Even though emancipatory intent is no guarantee of an emancipatory outcome (Acker, Barry & Esseveld, 1983, p. 431), ‘open rescue’ interviews describe liberating events.

In Chapter Four, I discuss research-informed theatre as a way to conceptualise sentience as an emancipatory teaching moment - where sentient ‘becomings’ defamiliarize students from the dominant discourse surrounding animal testing and provoke discussion around sentient empathy. In lieu of ordered theories that determine sentience, I wrote research-informed theatre scripts to highlight these ‘becoming’ moments, what Deleuze & Guattari (1984) define as “pedagogy of the concept” (p. 329).

Theme 3: Values and Beliefs

I focus now on respondents’ values and beliefs, particularly those empathetic traits that reflect a “do-no-harm” approach toward animals. This ‘do-no-harm’ ethos mirrors Indian religious practices of toward all living things, better known as ahimsa. In doing so, respondents offer a counter-narrative where sentient empathy overcomes the most harmful

78

aspects of animal experimentation. Moreover, do-no-harm values promote the subjectivities of animals as “lives worth living” (Matheny, 2003).

Participant K‘s rescue narratives encapsulate Indigenous leadership principles that value courage, fairness, generosity and (Alfred, 2009). I was inspired by Participant K’s patient resolve, which resulted in many animals being rescued,

[w]e don’t break in and steal the dogs. We negotiate with labs through a friendly inside contact, usually a laboratory veterinarian or a lab technician. They try to convince the “higher-ups” to work with Beagle Freedom Project and negotiate the release of animals (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014).

Moreover, Participant K exercises power courageously by thinking of others before thinking of himself stating,

[a]s human-centric animals ourselves, we have a lot to learn. For some beagles, they have the resiliency to overlook their past wounds. Just because we can grasp the idea of complete forgiveness doesn’t mean other animal species cannot. When they come out of a research laboratory, they’re uncertain and anxious; once they realize we won’t hurt them they embrace their new life…it’s heart-warming watching them experiencing joy. You realize that - “I can’t hurt these animals” (Ibid).

Participant K reveals empathetic values and beliefs such as a “do-no-harm” approach toward animals, which also reflects the cultural values of the community, including those researchers assigned to killing animals. The cultural paradox within science reveals troubled vivisectors who are engaged in killing animals for research, but these same vivisectors abandon those values when presented with a humane alternative like ‘open rescue.’ Remarkably, the promotion of sentience as a natural response mechanism conflicts with the commonly held belief that animals are not subjects-of-a-life. However, when skeptical oppressors (like a laboratory technician or veterinarian) actually assist in the rescue of beagles, fissures appear to disrupt the common belief that human beings must harm animals to justify research methods. Sentient empathy becomes a powerful reminder of species interconnectivity and the righteousness of ahimsa – that hurting another being is actually hurting oneself.

In , Power, Righteousness – An Indigenous Manifesto, Taiaiake Alfred (2009) maintains that individuals who are accountable, who cultivate relationships and who practice consensus-

79

building within the community become responsible leaders. Alfred (2009) points out that leadership is a practice of patient persuasion, where active disagreement is “a sign of health in the traditional system” as it means that, “…people are engaging their leaders and challenging them to prove the righteousness of their position” (p. 116). Barsh and Henderson’s (1980) study of traditional Native American political systems suggests that successful indigenous leaders followed four basic tenets: first, they draw on their own personal resources as sources of power; second, they set an example by assuming the responsibility of going first, assuming the greatest risk for the well-being of the community; third, leaders practiced modesty, using humour to deflect anger; and fourth, leaders acted as educators and role models.

Participant K‘s rescue narratives encapsulate indigenous leadership principles that value sentience. Following the second tenet of indigenous leadership, Participant K takes responsibility for initiating several non-violent rescues of animals by rejecting hyper-masculine tendencies embodied within hegemonic power structures that reward violence with more power. By decentering attention from himself and redirecting it to the plight of captive beagles, Participant K practices modesty, which is the third tenet of indigenous leadership.

From Participant K’s transcript, I developed a composite character (“Pat”), who incorporates Indigenous values in the tradition of the royaner, meaning “he is of the good” in the Kanien’keha language (Alfred, 2009). Remarking on the interconnectivity of anti-oppressive narratives, Canadian writer Naomi Klein (2013) contends that,

as we develop that story to counter oppression, we need to learn from the indigenous worldview. It’s a worldview that tells us you can’t just take but you have to give back whenever you harvest…that tells us that we are all connected – this is one struggle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KLd6Q5WQ4g).

Participant K reflects Indigenous values like responsibility and respect, particularly a “do-no- harm” approach when rescuing animals. In doing so, Participant K offers a counter-narrative, or ahimsa, where sentient empathy and non-violence overcomes sentient oppression. Participant K‘s rescue narratives encapsulate Indigenous leadership principles that value the subjectivities of animals as “lives worth living” (Matheny, 2003). But as anti-oppressive theorists appropriate Indigenous values to liberate sentient beings, Canadian ethnographer Tara Goldstein reminds me

80

that as we act to eliminate oppression, we may instead be perpetuating it. Historically, white colonial rulers censured Indigenous leadership practices and its practitioners were actively punished for organizing sweat lodges and upholding traditional values of modesty, respect and non-violence. When white people appropriate Indigenous political practices to liberate oppressed animals it is an unsettling reminder that the process of taking Indigenous practices without consent is not over, especially when white activists and academics end up having more access to Indigenous leadership practices than Indigenous communities do themselves. Increasingly, as Indigenous symbolism is appropriated within dance music, environmental awareness, and athletics, practitioners may not be invested in either developing an historical awareness of colonial, genocidal practices that destroyed Indigenous cultures nor in challenging the rules of current government practices that continue to oppress Indigenous peoples. Subsequently, the task for open rescuers is to extend respect and solidarity amongst marginalized human and non- human animals and act to eliminate all forms of oppression by challenging institutional power that uses forms of appropriation to divide and conquer sentient beings.

Beliefs: Moral Responsibility Absent of Extremism

My research-informed theatre project gained valuable insight from an analysis of respondents’ belief systems. From the transcripts, I coded responses into two categories - Life Affirming (“LA”) and Life Negating (“LN”) - which revealed that participants routinely affirmed life. More specifically, a recurring belief confirmed a predilection toward life: the promise of moral responsibility/agency toward animals absent of extremist ideologies. When I created dramatic scripts about ‘open rescue’, I incorporated respondents’ moral philosophies within the plays in order to develop authentic character representations (Ellis, 2000).

Interrelations emerged from the selective coding, illuminating participants’ beliefs concerning the ‘open rescue’ of animals from universities. The coded data confirmed that each participant had a compelling moral resolve to save animals; Participant K had the strongest affirmation of life at seventy-five per cent. Participant NU followed with fifty-six per cent affirmation of life, while Participant Y showed the lowest level of life affirmation at fifty-two per cent. From the coding procedures, I delineated beliefs among the respondents, so that I could create characters with distinct belief systems.

81

Analyzing separately, I begin with Participant NU’s email correspondence, since she promptly alludes to a moral belief that is guardedly optimistic about animal lives. She writes, “I want to comment on the idea of rights….I certainly do believe in rights for animals, but I feel that the idea of animal rights has become too political, and is associated with ideas of extremism” (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013).

From Participant NU’s response, Life Affirming (LA) words and phrases were selectively coded, up to and including the word “politic”. I grouped the last phrase, “…is associated with ideas of extremism” as Life-Denying (LD). From the categorized data, Participant NU describes a belief system in line with her fellow respondents, where the affirmation of animal rights expands her notion of moral responsibility in contrast to the immoderate views of some animal liberationists. In staying true to Participant NU’s original beliefs concerning animal rights, I contend that she considered extremism to be life-denying because it lacked an ethic of compassion.

The rejection of extremism held firm when I created the characters of “Jana” and her dog “Rose” (Read Appendix B – Play Two). I juxtaposed Participant NU’s ‘open rescue’ testimonial (“… falling in love with the puppy) with Jana’s moral compassion toward animals,

…. There was a frightening immediacy to get this little puppy to safety. I knew this dog was now mine and I was not going to ever give her up as I began cradling her against my shoulder and neck - it was so deliciously soft I could hardly believe how attached I was becoming to my furry friend. I was so sure of this feeling of love even as I kept staring at the loading dock wondering what would happen to all the other dogs (Appendix B, Play Two).

The character “Jana” decides that it is more important to get the “little puppy to safety” than risk trying to rescue the remaining caged dogs, either by force or coercion. Toward the end of Jana’s monologue, I highlight her moral resolve to protect the rescued puppy, “Rose, I promise you, you’ll never have to see the inside of a university research lab as long as I am alive…that’s one thing I am totally certain of” (read Appendix B, Play Two).

As evidenced in the draft monologue, the moral resolve shown by Jana and her instantaneous love for the rescued puppy can be directly traced to Participant NU’s affirmation of life and her rejection of extremist beliefs. I highlight this tension toward the end of Jana’s monologue. Upset at having to get off a bus because she is carrying a non-service dog, Jana remains silent rather

82

than risk an argument with the bus driver. She asks, “What is the difference between a service dog and a puppy from a research lab, anyway? I was about to say something to the driver but got off the bus without making a disturbance” (Appendix B, Play Two).

Jana’s non-confrontational approach with the male bus driver is my attempt to reign in the hyper- masculine tendencies of animal right activists, who may use intimidation or violence to make their point. By de-centering their notions of morality, the scripted character of “Jana” is forced to consider how extremist actions inevitably hinder rather than promote sentient empathy. Sentient empathy asks rescuers to put themselves in the place of the animal: how would a rescue dog react to a heated exchange between two human beings over commuter rights?

When I analyzed respondents’ beliefs and values, Participant Y and Participant K offer life- affirming testimonials, rejecting extremist approaches to rescue animals. For example, Participant K was resolute in his belief that non-violent intervention could save animals, even rejecting the term ‘open rescue’ by saying “…we don’t do open rescue. We don’t break in and steal the dogs” (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014). Here, Participant K rejects the ‘open rescue’ term due to its alleged extremist connotations.

Participating in twenty-two animal rescues, Participant K has had more success saving animals by working with vivisectionist rather than plotting against them. Describing animal experimentation as “nightmarish”, Participant K reconciles his anger and despair by saving as many as 175 animals from laboratories, maintaining that, “[m]y conscience asks me to take action. I am passionate about this because while I was growing up, I had beagles as pets” (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014).

Participant K’s value and belief system got its grounding from a moral consciousness developed at an early age. US biologist Marc Bekoff (2010) believes that individuals often learn what can and cannot be done through lessons in social cognition and empathy - which can be taught through social play at an early age (p. 470). Moreover, Bekoff & Pierce (2009) conclude that there is no moral gap between humans and other species - the integrity of the group depends upon individuals accepting rules that regulate their behaviour.

83

Living and playing with beagles from an early age has enhanced Participant K’s moral perspective concerning what is “right” and what is “wrong” with animal testing. The respondent recognizes that animals have a cognitive capacity and sentience, especially an ability to suffer and feel pain. Interestingly, Participant K believes all humans have the biological and social capacity to be conscious moral beings – to live as non-violent actors, who affirm life. He states, “…all humans have different abilities. Everyone has the capacity to be conscious. For some, their conscience is a bigger part of their personhood….I’ve never thought why am I like this…it’s who I am. I have never thought like that” (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014).

Participant K explains that human consciousness is, “…a combination of nature and nurture” where protecting animals is both learned and innate behaviour. I expanded Participant K’s moral philosophy when I scripted a dramatic interview with a composite character named “Pat.” I was interested in the effectiveness of working within existing power structures rather than against them when it came to Pat’s animal rescues.

The goal of respectful autonomy that Participant K practices with vivisectionists differs significantly from the revolutionary objectives of certain animal liberationists, who believe harm done to animals must be met with a reciprocal amount of harm toward the perpetrators. A pro- vivisection website, Understanding Animal Research (UAR), quotes Animal Liberation Front’s US press officer (2015) as explaining that, “…force is a poor second choice, but if that's the only thing that will work ... there's certainly moral justification for that” (http://www.animalrightsextremism.info/animal-rights-extremism/history-of-animal-rights- extremism/violent-extremism#sthash.xfBEGlpM.dpuf).

The scripted character, “Pat” believes in animal rights from a legislative framework, resisting the hyper-masculine tendency to “smash the state” – an extremist politic based on fear and confrontation. When scripted characters conduct ‘open rescues’ they do so by empowering persons within the university apparatus to practice sentient empathy which respects and nurtures discretion and interdependence.

84

In a critique on power and colonialism, indigenous educator Taiaiake Alfred (2009) argues that notions of revolution in the classic sense are unworkable because they run contrary to the basic tenets of traditional Indigenous philosophies. In embracing mutual dependency based on federalist principles, Alfred (2009) maintains,

Indigenous peoples do not seek to destroy the state, but to make it more just and to improve their relations with the mainstream society….Indigenous empowerment involves achieving a relationship between peoples founded on the principles of autonomy and interdependence….To accommodate indigenous notions of nationhood and cease its interference in indigenous communities, the state need only refer to the federal principle (p.77).

Utilizing Participant K’s notions of mutual dependency or working with vivisectors to rescue animals, I researched Internet sources where animal rights activists had been working with legislators to reshape animal rights legislation. I also wanted to buttress Participant K’s philosophy concerning non-violent animal rescues with Alfred’s teachings, specifically, where co-existence among disparate groups could further sentient empathy. I illustrate this premise through Pat’s moral resolve to rescue as many animals as possible (through personal intervention and political mechanisms) without resorting to extremism.

In Play Three (Appendix A), “Pat ” maintains an ongoing dialogue (and dispute resolution) with universities that can, “… facilitate the working relationship between the labs and registered non- profit rescue groups (like Beagle Liberation Trust) so we can help screen for homes and give the adopters the support and resources they need to help these animals recover”. Correspondingly, “Pat” muses over the impact of the Beagle Liberation Act within the dramatic script I wrote,

… our animal rights bill may soon become law thanks to the continued support of our State legislators –the passing of this Bill could literally save thousands of dogs. If you read the bill… it embodies compassion and common sense (Appendix A, Play Three).

The ability to change laws that save animals may give critics of mutual engagement pause to reflect on outcomes: what is more advantageous to the struggle against speciesism – risking arrest by vandalizing laboratories to save several animals versus advocating politically for animal rights legislation that could save thousands of animal lives at once? Can Participant K’s culturally profound values and beliefs free up activists to promote sentient empathy in other

85 contentious areas like legislating against factory farms or saving endangered species affected by climate change?

I would argue that the potential for systemic change arises when merciful stories challenge the official story where the capture, control and killing of animals is the ‘only’ narrative in research. Canadian writer Naomi Klein (2013) argues that the rejection of the dominant story, like “extractives capitalism”, must directly correspond to a re-visioning of what is possible. Klein suggests,

we need our own story about what the world can be. We can’t just reject their lies. We need truth so powerful that their lies dissolve on contact with them….we need our own fully articulated and inspiring projects (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KLd6Q5WQ4g).

Within a speciesist superstructure, protests against animal testing are met with draconian forms of state terror and control that aim to frighten the wider population from supporting animal liberation. Contrastingly, when animals are rescued from university laboratories, respondents subvert oppressor consciousness by disavowing the use of violence. In fact, respondent’s non- violent behaviour enticed some university staff to initiate ‘open rescues’ in order to save animals from harm, further legitimating the non-violent beliefs of open rescuers. Revealingly, my data analysis of respondents’ values and beliefs aided the authenticity of my script-writing because it affirmed the belief that even when animals were being murdered for research, extremist acts were still deemed injudicious. A staged reading of a dramatic script may help convince fellow students and educators of the usefulness of ‘open rescue’ and the importance of developing compassion and empathy towards animals.

Values and Beliefs: Moral Responsibility

From a moral standpoint, resisting speciesist oppression (“doing the right thing”) gave meaning to respondents’ lives. Participant NU’s decision to save a dog gave meaning to her own life,

…acknowledging that millions of animals suffer because of animal research does not mean that I am helpless to that awareness. Rescuing a research dog gave me a tremendous sense of empowerment. She served as a reminder of the way that our actions can change the fate of other living beings, and that we can make choices every day that can have that kind of impact (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013).

86

A belief that our moral choices “can change the fate of other living beings” (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013) gives meaning to the lives of open rescuers. The individuals that I interviewed were not helpless in the face of speciesist oppression, but rather empowered when they attempt to rescue “… the nameless, faceless animals out there that suffer at the hands of humans” (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013).

Vivisectors condone the murder of animals because an absence of social structures and boundaries within scientific and bio-medical research produces gaps in morality, leading to dissolution – or ‘othering’ - of a certain species. Working against an agenda that objectifies animals, US biologist Marc Bekoff (2006) argues that human and non-human animals possess a moral sense of cooperation, fairness, and empathy. Thus, stories of ‘open rescue’ bridge the gaps in social morality - where codes of social conduct regulate actions that are and are not permissible. In the case of “Rita Shresthowser”, the scripted character bridges society’s moral gaps by bringing us closer to the body where bearing witness to painful experiments on stirs up an emotional response, which renders the animal a conscious, moral being (Aaltola, 2015). But by detaching ourselves from compassion and empathy for other animals, we can easily rationalize the necessity of animal testing when we are told by vivisectors harming animals ‘benefits’ the greater number of people. And if we allow ourselves to become sentimental as opposed to indifferent, if we practice ahimsa instead of entertaining violent thoughts, and if we value the moral agency of an animal rather than devalue its intrinsic worth, we respond with greater moral certainty that a suffering rabbit needs our help.

Participant NU describes rescuing a puppy from a research facility as a “tipping point” in her life – a gap in her life filled by a moral imperative to save a dog’s life. When faced with the dark side of speciesist oppression (“… millions of animals suffer because of animal research”), Participant NU reaffirms a moral responsibility to act so that, “… our actions can change the fate of other living beings… we can make choices every day that can have that kind of impact.” Participant NU’s actions changed the fate of another living being, giving her a “tremendous” sense of empowerment and identity. I highlight the respondent’s moral depth of character when I developed the composite character of “Jana”,

87

I began thinking how incredibly lucky I was to be at the right place and the right time to have saved this little dog’s life. But when I thought about it a little more, I really was in the wrong place at the wrong time, doing something that may have been unlawful. I don’t care; we were now both safe and that was some kind of unexplainable gift….So it seems I was destined to rescue this puppy. It is the only way I can make any sense of this. And for that brief moment, I felt that I had been rescued. For all I knew, my little puppy came to rescue me! For that, I am incredibly grateful to… “ROSE” (see Appendix A, Play 2).

Making sense of the randomness of events in Jana’s life, particularly the “unexplainable gift” of rescuing a dog from a university research facility, highlights gaps in social morality. Even when doing the right thing may be deemed wrong, moral uncertainty lends dramatic context to Jana’s character, and having been “rescued” by a dog affirms her own existence.

But what does the data reveal about participants who are unsure of their values and beliefs, specifically their moral character? What can be culled from the research data on the affirmation of life, when Participant K, a rescuer of 150 beagles scores twenty-three percentage points higher than Participant Y, who rescued eight mice? Is there a discrepancy in their values or belief systems that effects how they view the lives of animals?

Discussion of Values and Beliefs

Participant Y affirms life when he describes the rescue of eight mice from a university laboratory, but he, himself, is unsure whether saving the mice from certain death and putting them in bigger cages is actually fair to the animals. As a researcher, I struggled with Participant Y’s ethical conundrum—how does a researcher code data that reciprocally affirms but also denies the life of a mouse? Participant Y confides,

what the problem I’ve run into is that…if I set them free they don’t have any skills…they were raised in a lab so they don’t have any skills for survival on the outside and I can’t set them free… so the lab is not a good thing and then even if they’re in large cages as they are now and their taken care of properly their still caged… (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013).

Participant Y problematizes his concerns allowing for an introspective analysis that straddles the middle ground between LA and LD themes. In contrast, Participant K’s overwhelming

88 affirmation of life, points to a dog-lover who has freed, cared for, and shared in the joy of so many animals. Participant K describes his ‘open rescue’ and the joy of animals,

[w]hen you take an animal out of a cage, it’s like a dog at home…animal testing becomes real…. I have participated in 22 rescues….One hundred and fifty of those animals were beagles.… I have had four dogs throughout my life…at present, the two beagles from the research labs…. I share a life with them. They are there when you are down. They provide entertainment….they’re funny. What dogs provide to you is pretty obvious—it’s not a secret (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014).

Thus, Participant K’s experiential certainty at having saved 175 animals solidifies his embrace of life affirming themes. Dissimilarly, Participant Y is uncertain of his actions as he weighs the pros and cons of the ‘open rescue’ of eight mice. In the future, a more transparent outcome might include participant interaction in the selective coding process where the participants, themselves, verify thematic outcomes (LA vs. LD) from their interview responses.

When sorting through the behaviour, language, values and beliefs of interview respondents, the reader gains insight into the sentient realm of animals. Specifically, the ability of open rescuers to empathize with the suffering of animals and in each case undertook animal rescues that affirmed life. The experiences of the three respondents make animal testing visible and the need to promote arts-based social justice education as a means of promoting sentient empathy. In Chapter Four, I describe the analytic process of developing three ethnographic scripts of ‘open rescues’ from university research facilities, allowing for a better understanding of sentient empathy so that a wider public can be attuned to its usefulness.

CHAPTER FOUR

In this chapter, I describe the analytic process I undertook to develop three ethnographic scripts, and focus on some of the reasons why I turned ‘open rescue’ interviews into one-act plays. I introduce the reader to Research-Informed Theatre (RIT) as a means of advancing animal rights activism and explain how the process of writing three scripts (from the three interviews I conducted in 2013-2014) can promote the notion of sentient empathy among a larger audience.

As an artist-researcher, I began to investigate a particular aspect of the sentient condition, specifically how three ‘open rescue’ respondents gained sentient empathy after rescuing animals from universities. After transcribing three interviews, specifically from electronic messaging (Participant NU), a telephone call (Participant K) and a videotaped interview (Participant Y), I developed composite characters within fictional settings where daring ‘open rescues’ were carried out. By creating ethnographic plays about animal rescues at invented universities, I protect the anonymity of my research respondents while allowing audience members to physically, emotionally, and cognitively enter into the captive world of ‘research’ animals as scripted for the stage.

By engaging with individuals who undertook ‘open rescues’ at universities, I investigated various emotional, intellectual and social interpretations of sentience beyond positivist scientific practices. Play scripts allow for an intimate examination of ‘open rescue’ narratives, especially those relational qualities of knowledge and stories about sentient empathy told in more than one way (Litchbau, 2009).

Research Informed Theatre: What It Is?

As investigators into the human condition, qualitative researchers have begun to use arts-based research practices, like research-informed theatre (RIT) in their social research. More specifically, ethnographers are staging performances using research taken verbatim from their interviews and observation field notes, which has the potential to be “emotionally and politically evocative” and “aesthetically powerful” (Leavy, 2008, p. 12). Using the information culled from

89

90

my data collection, analysis, and interpretation of specific themes, I dramatized the ‘open rescue’ research findings into research-informed theatre scripts using specific passages from respondent interviews to highlight the suffering of animals and what could be done to stop it. In expanding the framework of the dramatic arts, Research-Informed Theatre (RIT) invites people into dialogue as a means of facilitating socio-cultural change. From an academic perspective this method of inquiry brings research alive (Oberg, 2008) since it turns the findings of ethnographic research into creative attempts to get beyond people’s day-to-day experiences. In so doing it is able to unmask how “…structures of power reproduce themselves in everyday life” (Goldstein, 2012. p. 1). For example, my ethnographic research into the phenomena of ‘open rescue’ by animal rights activists reveals how universities continue to obstruct and ignore calls for the ethical treatment of animals, allowing a normative discourse on animal testing to reign supreme even when proven non-lethal research alternatives could reduce animal suffering and deaths.

As I briefly mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, I used an interview methodology to collect data from three respondents who answered three specific questions (Appendix E) about their animal rescues. As researcher turned playwright, I then crafted the respondent’s answers into three scripted narratives that retold their stories for the first time incorporating composite characters, different settings and verbatim text of animal rescues motivated by sentient empathy. It is my intention to read aloud these play scripts to a group of participants or have actors perform them live in front of a larger audience.

As a forum to expand the animal rights conversation, RIT facilitates alternative perspectives beyond the normative discourse surrounding animal testing, enabling students, educators, researchers, and the larger public to empathize with animals for the purpose of sentient understanding and transformation of current speciesist attitudes (Alexander, 2005). Data analysis from respondent interviews revealed findings that made their way directly into RIT scripts (i.e. bearing witness to animal suffering instilled sentient empathy as it brought respondent’s closer to animal bodies). By viewing animal suffering from the scripted characters and their stories, audience members also bear witness to what was previously unseen or unheard of, which may demand an empathetic response on their part. It is my hope that these scripts will transform the

91

speciesist behaviour, language, values and beliefs of audience members to affirm animal lives rather than deny them.

By engaging a wider audience in a conversation about animal testing, RIT scripts can make connections to their personal and social knowledge of vivisection, thus engaging in a dialectical process that has the ability to shift moral understandings of sentience (Dewey, 1997; O’Neill, 2006). When critical ethnographers ask moral questions about animal testing, imaginative reconstructions transpire (Litchbau, 2009). For example, audience members, listening to vivid accounts of ‘open rescue’ for the first time, can challenge taken-for-granted meanings concerning sentience while attuning themselves to unconscious knowledge, which is something traditional qualitative research has yet to aspire to. Hence, ‘open rescue’ scripts redefine the moral agency of ‘research’ animals, as the broader public comes to empathize, or “walk in the shoes” of those animals in a dramatic fashion. Within this theatrical realm, Canadian ethnographer Carol Marie Oberg (2008) argues research-informed theatre acts as a “social conscience and tool of liberation” that gravitates away from the academic notion that animal testing is grounded in irrefutable facts and age-old science but towards qualitative, arts-based research situated in the midst of the sentient experience (p. 3).

Research-Informed Theatre as a Critical Arts-Based Practice

Critical research informed theatre (RIT), or critical performed ethnography shifts the focus of research away from positivist, rational interpretations of social phenomena and moves it toward diverse research methodologies that includes the cultivation of imagination, perception, qualitative interpretation and artistic skill mastery (Finley, 2005). In doing so, RIT inspires researchers to question how ethnographic truths get told and in particular, whose stories get told.

Traditional ethnography often focuses on marginalized cultures that informed academia without ever benefiting that specific cultural group (Clifford, 1983). Feminist anthropologist Ruth Behar (1995) posited a new ethnographic approach that attempted to, “decolonize the power relations” inherent in the presentation of “Other people” by researchers (p. 3-4). As an anti-colonialist response to orthodox research practices, academic researchers and artists began to work in tandem (or took on both roles) to describe culture from the point of view of those who were

92

living in it; questioning how power reproduced itself in everyday life became the analytical practice of critical ethnographers (Goldstein, 2012, p. 1).

As a means of challenging staid power dynamics (like speciesist interpretations of sentience within medico-scientific research), Research-Informed Theatre (RIT) utilizes mainstream theatre to engage in public discussions around alternative political discourses (Glow, 2007). For example, the primary focus in the RIT plays that I wrote revolves around the actions of the rescuers and the liberated animals as I wanted to offset the detached response of vivisectors to the suffering of animals. Theatre writer Hilary Glow (2007) contends that RIT scripts make a substantive contribution to political discourse because the playwright is willing to interrogate systems of power. Following Glow’s premise, my RIT scripts attempt to understand how the politics around sentience shapes who people are, how they live as sentient beings and what they do when a sentient being is in distress.

Given how researchers kill animals at the end of research experiments, RIT scripts deconstruct the hollowness of that power discourse, revealing how open rescuers conduct themselves non- violently and resist harming animals by reacting empathetically to animal suffering. Performance ethnography, as an arts-based research practice, provides an opportunity for the wider public to creatively envision alternate existences that do not harm animals (Greene, 1995). As an anti- colonialist response to orthodox research practices, artists as researchers (and vice versa) have begun to describe culture from the point of view of those who are living in it – both human and non-human animals repressed by speciesist forms of techno-capitalism.

Consequently, critical ethnographers have sharpened their analytic tools by questioning how power reproduces itself in everyday life (Goldstein, 2012, p. 1). Canadian ethnographic playwright and educator Tara Goldstein (2012) contends that different modes of artistic practice can produce an array of performed ethnography that includes, “short narratives, novels… poems, collages, paintings, drawings, performance scripts, theatre performances, dances, documentaries, and songs” as a means of promoting dialogue and facilitating conversation about power (p. 116). Moreover, RIT scripts can be performed on their own merit or in combination with another art form, which Leavy (2008) describes as a powerfully moving way to bring about social action.

93

In contrast, traditional ethnography focused on marginalized cultures that informed academia without ever benefiting that specific cultural group (Clifford, 1983). That was before a new wave of ethnographers published a remarkable array of arts-based research including Laurel Richardson’s (2007) auto-ethnographic tale, Last Writes: A Daybook for a Dying Friend; playwrights Eve Ensler’s (2000) verbatim texts, The Vagina Monologues; Moises Kaufman’s (2000) docudrama, The Laramie Project; and Anna Deavere Smith’s (1994) multi-character monologues in Twilight; Los Angeles 1992. Whether its Leyla Modirzadeh’s (2008) “ground- breaking” documentary theatre piece entitled Secret Histories: Oxford or Deavere Smith’s (1994) “triumphant monologues” in Twilight, ethnographic performance impacts audiences because it has the potential to promote dialogue by challenging personal opinions, habits of mind, worldviews and representations of power dynamics (Denzin, 2003; Ellis, 2000; Elias, 1997; Richardson 2000). I confirm that ‘open rescue’ narratives are impactful because stories of animal liberation challenge taken-for-granted meanings that suggest animals must be killed after testing to prove “educational efficacy.” Of note, the transformative element of RIT is holistically grounded in notions of feminist ethic-of-care theory and political ‘struggle’.

Research Informed Theatre as Holistic Practice

Research informed theatre embodies aspects of holism that confront oppressive speciesist binaries. Western science views the world in static polarities – “subject and object,” “reason and emotion” and “superior and inferior” (Kheel, 1985, 142). When science poses polarities, it characterizes the first half of that duality as having more value than the other half. Consequently, dualistic thinking has pre-dominated the sciences for centuries and reinforced human dominance of the sentient world, especially over other animals.

To counter this male-valued thinking, ethic-of care feminists (and quantum physicists) have advanced a holistic vision of nature where everything is integrally interconnected and. hence, part of a larger “whole” (Kheel, 1985, 135). In Green Paradise Lost, Elizabeth D. Gray (1979) explains holism as, “a circle, an interconnected system in which everything has its part to play and can be respected and accorded dignity” (p. 58).

94

Theatre brings into play physical and emotive qualities that respond to dramatic themes like death, power, suffering and loss (Sinner et al., 2006). My RIT study focuses on raising awareness about animal testing in universities so that we can empathetically respond to animal suffering and loss. Arts based research on animal testing explores, “new knowledge on procedures and creation/devising processes” (Gruen, 1996, p. 337-38) that inform a broader public about ‘the Other’.

When the ‘Other’ is made visible, performed ethnography questions how power discourses maintain a distance among species groups; our apathy and detachment mirrors that sentient distance between us. Institutional isolation is further revealed when students, who want to abstain from animal testing, are subsequently labelled (‘emotional’ or ‘irrational’). Hence, when a disruptive materializing discourse evokes an emotional response that questions the positivist rationales to harm animals, caring individuals are further isolated from their apathetic peers. By disrupting a ‘rational versus emotional’ duality embedded in science, RIT holistically attunes the reader/viewer to emotive and physical connections to ‘the whole’, thereby lessening the distance between species groups. I will now outline Helen Vosters’ (2013) “prefigurative politic” (p. 19), a politically-inspired, arts-based performance practice that grounds RIT scripts within the social justice realm.

Helene Vosters’ Impact Lab: Struggle

Similar arts-based research methods expand on subjective connections with the ‘Other’ allowing researchers to creatively reclaim focus onto the body. Analyzing a performative perspective, I introduce the reader to Canadian arts-based researcher Helen Vosters’ (2013) “prefigurative politic” (p. 19). Vosters’ (2013) Impact Lab3 makes connections to distanced ‘Others’ utilizing dance as a public mourning practice that brings viewers closer to invisible victims of war. Vosters asserts that “spatial dialectics,” where empathy is confined within national boundaries,

3 As an alternative memorial project entitled “Impact Afghanistan War”, Vosters fell 100 times a day in a public space (Queen’s Park, Toronto) for one year--each of Impact’s 36,600 falls was done in recognition of one of the tens of thousands of unnamed and uncounted Afghan dead. From my own perspective, the performance’s mandate could be reframed to symbolize the thousands of animals who fall to the whims of University of Toronto vivisectionists -- who are located directly across the street from Queen’s Park.

95 interpellates (or selectively engages) our response as “citizen soldiers” (p. 13). Hence, space is allotted to grieve for Canadian military combatants without ever having to empathize with their victims. Vosters (2013) argues that as citizens, we must courageously embody physical risks to fight spatial distancing. This is a struggle led by a “prefiguritive politic” that resists interpellation of empathy as a narrowly defined nationalist brand (p. 19). Vosters choreographed falls embodied physical risks allowing victims of war to become symbolically visible, hence “the real struggle” (p. 20) required practical movements and interactions that resisted oppressive constructs.

As a holistic tool for social change, I examined how RIT scripts could embody this “real struggle” (p.20) to bring us closer to the animal bodies (both human and non-human) in distress. Borrowing from Vosters “real struggle” (p. 20) analogy, my research examines the interpellative process on university campuses where ‘student soldiers’ are enlisted to fight wars on cancer, AIDS/HIV, and heart disease while ignoring the harm inflicted upon animals inside university laboratories.

For example, interpellating the student as a ‘researcher’ rationalizes structural violence upon animals in order to ‘find the cure’ for cancer. Just as fear becomes the interpellative characteristic signifying a ‘war on terror’ that obliterates bodies of colour, correspondingly, merciless indifference toward animals becomes the interpellative signifier that shapes a ‘war on cancer’ that obliterates sentient bodies. Additionally, a hidden curriculum further entrenches a do-harm discourse in the public-private classroom, which may ultimately censure opposition to animal testing. The ‘open rescue’ of animals is an opportunity to link the personal and political so that as an affective fact, sentient empathy influences a cognitive response to reduce, replace, and refine animal testing within scientific research. Of note, students should not be penalized for disrupting the speciesist status quo even when millions of research dollars demand their submission.

From my research interviews, Participant Y lends credence to Vosters (2013) prefigurative politic, comparing the distancing of animals wrought by vivisectors to the distancing wrought by Dr. Mengele, who carried out lethal experiments on Jewish prisoners in Nazi concentration camps. Where courageous individuals risked their lives to end Nazi Germany’s genocidal

96

distancing of minority groups in World War Two (Fogelman, 1994), open rescuers embody similar risks to bring us closer to an oppressed minority group: ‘research’ animals. Participant Y addresses objections to the valuation of Jewish prisoners with captive mice,

anybody who objects to that comparison (Pause) the reason they object is because…they’ve already devalued animals…and say that animals are inferior, but if, if you grant for a moment, ummm, animals are not, you can see that the comparison is a valid one (Videotape Interview with Participant Y: March 2nd, 2013)

Hence, RIT encapsulates a vibrant resistance that materializes bodies (including mice) so that all sentient beings regain that interconnection to ‘the whole’. From the RIT plays, characters take risks to re-connect bodies to the circular whole. By embodying sentient empathy, scripted characters resist a dematerializing discourse that devalues sentience, especially a physical (or emotional) response to it.

Given the historical context of a prefigurative politic, research-informed theatre (RIT) is well placed to inform a wider audience about practical movements and interactions that can transform systematic complacency toward sentient beings. From the research transcripts, I identified a prefigurative body politic where respondents bear witness to animal suffering, carry out open rescues, and provide adoptive care to rescued animals. As a trained choreographer, I noted specific body movements and facial expressions among open rescuers (i.e. bowing of a head, darting of eyes, uncomfortable breathing, pained glances and wringing of hands), which embodies “the real struggle” to confront a harm discourse.

Using affective and political mobilizations to focus attention on the ‘Other’, I scripted characters (from interview transcripts) who bear witness to animal suffering and who embody risks that make animal suffering visible and urgent. For example, when scripted characters bear witness to horrific experiments on animals, they draw upon intuitive physical (and emotional) responses that attune the broader public to that pain. Bearing witness subverts a positivist discourse as audiences begin to reinterpret sentience beyond interpellative attempts that rationalize saving humans by harming animals. RIT scripts identify “the real struggle” (Vosters, 2011, p. 20) as the actions of open rescuers draw the reader/viewer closer to the body as a way of countering a positivist discourse divested from sentience. Hence, sentient empathy brings audiences closer to

97

the body – interconnected subjectivity upends the categorization of animals as expendable parts. As oxygen-dependent entities, we cannot detach sentience from the natural world just as much as the whole cannot detach the natural world of its sentient parts.

When research respondents embody physical risks, they struggle against a vivisecting status quo that cowers from empathizing with cancer-ridden mice. As a holistic research practice, a “spatial dialectic” (Vosters, 2011, 11) can be transformed when interpellative boundaries reveal how little we have in common with that speciesist discourse. When sentient boundaries are moved, a shift in thinking highlights interpellative faults. For example, if Indian students employ alternative research practices that do not harm animals, how are we to believe that Canadian students are less likely to harm animals or are beyond learning new knowledge? Moreover, can empathizing with a mouse be wrong when fifty per cent of animal experiments are curiosity driven?

Tragically, participatory meaning-making insists on recognizing our shared indifference toward animals instead of our shared commonalities. By detaching the emotional experience from critical interpretation, the affective experience is rendered subjective (private), separating it from the political realm (public) so that it produces rationalized meanings that shape political policy (Massumi, 2007). Within the physical realm of risk-taking, ‘open rescue’ scripts make visible what vivisectors try to obliterate. Research informed theatre reclaims the subjective body so that audiences can be holistically attuned to a public-political consciousness that subverts interpellative boundaries.

For example, the human species cannot detach the animal from ourselves no matter how hard we try; we experience the world of matter and spirit as one with the universe so that animal suffering becomes our suffering. Thus, the promotion of animal liberation inversely promotes our liberation. When the broader public is informed about alternatives to animal testing, stories that question the need to harm animals brings us closer to the subjective body so we can reflect within the conscious realm of the public polity.

Arts-based qualitative research attune audiences to prefigurative political shifts where theatre and dance movement brings bodies closer to us; both bodies, the rescuer and the rescued, are

98

reclaimed for public discourse. The suffering and risks faced by open rescuers are aligned with the suffering and risks faced by rescued animals whom also bear witness, scream, run away, bite, claw, and even forgive their oppressors. By recording this data, I observed how a character’s movement on stage is connected to the larger ‘whole’– as we move freely; animals yearn for that freedom as well.

Ethical Rationale: Sentimentalism and Moral Significance

When considering an ethical rational for transcribing open rescue interviews into dramatic scripts, I maintain that the suffering of animals is significant. Indeed, each play that gets us closer to the body allows the audience to get closer to the suffering of animals so that they feel the pain of sentient beings in distress. Animal suffering is no longer invisible to the attentive psyche of the attuned audience. By bringing animal suffering into the artistic realm tinged with sentimentalism, ‘open rescue’ dramatizations motivate the reader/viewer to consider an emotive response to animal testing, where sentient empathy becomes the guiding force of animal liberation.

As sites of information, friendships with animals bridge differences across distance revealing animals as conscious, sentient subjects-of-a-life (Regan, 1983). Adams and Cuomo (2007) assert that the bonds we develop with other animals in our lives, “… require us to hone our empathetic awareness” (339). From the research interviews I conducted, each respondent confirmed how building relationships with animals bridged differences because it allowed respondents to build intersubjective relationships with animals that affirmed the moral worth of animals while nurturing empathy for their suffering. The respondents I interviewed came face-to-face with captive dogs and mice in research facilities, describing vivid accounts of animals in various stages of distress.

As respondents opened up emotionally about their ‘open rescue’ experiences, they provided unique observations about the moral complexity of animals. Describing dogs as “funny,” while providing, “entertainment…when you are down,” Participant K probes the moral depths of beagles beyond a scientific discourse that simply objectifies dogs as “docile models” (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014). Participant K elaborates on the moral depth of dogs

99

explaining “[y]ou cannot disregard that they are living beings and have value independent of any financial worth” (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014). If a positivist ideology denies an animal’s moral worth, RIT scripts, inspired by real-life accounts of ‘open rescue’ transport audience members into the hearts and minds of those rescuers –their dreams of animal liberation and anguished concern about animal testing bring us together using arts-based research that promotes sentient empathy.

Inspired by a sentimentalist ethic, Research-Informed Theatre (RIT) is an urgent, emotive response to the concerns of research participants. More specifically, RIT scripts address the ‘traumatic’ events that take place in university laboratories, allowing the audiences to get a better understanding of the moral depth of the rescuer and the rescued animals. For example, when undertaking the emotional rollercoaster of ‘open rescue’, participants described pre- rescue moments of deep despair, sadness and loss that were offset by post-rescue moments that were joyful, exhilarating and life-changing. When I asked Participant K how rescuing an animal could be a life-changing experience, he stated,

Rescuing an animal in a laboratory makes issues real. There is a real disconnect for some who see animal testing as abstract. When you take an animal out of a cage, it’s like a dog at home….it’s heart-warming watching them experiencing joy. You realize that - “I can’t hurt these animals” (Interview with Participant K: 10th February, 2014).

By entering into intersubjective states with dogs, Participant K reveals their moral significance as conscious, sentient beings deserving protection from vivisectors. As a qualitative researcher, performed ethnography allows me to hone in on each respondents’ emotional character by scripting plays that stay true to the evocative power of the respondents’ experiences. Goldstein (2012) confirms the impact of transcribing research into RIT scripts, stating “[e]ngaging in the reading of a play script is a powerful way of creating a personal and emotional connection with issues faced by the characters of the play” (p. 64).

The scripted characters I created from research transcripts engage the reader/viewer because emotional imagery lends itself to the complexities of the sentient world. From Participant K’s testimonial about the difficulty of animal rescues, I scripted the character’s (“Pat”) emotional re- collection of a beagle rescue from Fullerton University. “Pat” states, “…that Fullerton beagle

100

you just watched on EOX News faced a cruel fate. On the verge of being euthanized by university researchers, Jazzy was literally on death-row awaiting execution. That was a difficult rescue for me” (Read Appendix C, Play Three).

Adopting a sentimentalist rationale, RIT scripts invite a wide variety of interpretive, emotional responses from the collected transcripts (Goldstein 2012). The use of symbolism and imagery in theatre evokes a direct visceral response from audience members. When combining evocative, emotional imagery in play scripts with complex dramatic structures, Romanian playwright Eugène Ionesco illuminates on the power of theatre describing it as an, “…instrument for the transmission of more complex human situations and experiences” (as cited in Esslin, 1961, p. 194-195). I believe provocative issues like animal testing provoke a visceral response to animal suffering which translates well as theatre. When scripted plays dramatize morally significant issues, qualitative research holds true to a sentimentalist ethic that can be wildly interpretive while being faithful to the participant’s worldview.

Values and Beliefs: Ahimsa as Non-Violence toward Animals

I refer to the moral philosophy of ahimsa – or the capacity to disengage from harmful thoughts and violence toward living creatures - to explain my ethical rationale for transferring participant interviews into scripted plays. Throughout each phase of my research project, violent images and tortured descriptions of animals kept reappearing, like unsettled ghosts haunting the textual periphery. In order to deal with animal loss and suffering, I grounded myself in ahimsa practices that recognize the life affirming spirit of animals, particularly all those animals that perished at the hands of vivisectors over the three-year course of this research project.

Focusing on non-violence in play-scripts follows the “reflexive turn” in my research. Considering how respondents’ non-violent behaviour disrupted speciesist designs, Participant NU exemplifies a do-no-harm politic,

I tend to phrase a lot of my dialogue around an ethic of compassion, of one of doing no harm to people, animals and the environment. I try and make personal choices that

101

do not cause harm, and in conversation with others, I try to focus on this aspect (Interview with Participant NU: 25th July, 2013).

“Jana” – the composite character I created from the 25th July, 2013 interview with Participant NU - exhibits a reactive resistance (Switzer, 2005). The character, “Jana” empathetically asserts her neutral body in a non-violent way to counter hyper-masculine rhetoric (i.e. “Smash-the- State”). I reflexively internalized Participant NU’s understated approach to animal activism and creatively externalized interpretive responses to do-no-harm, scripting a play that honoured how knowledge of ahimsa was acquired.

I contend that the themes of non-violence reflected in the interview transcripts translate well into theatre because a reflexive unity was nurtured between researcher and research participants, including the ‘research’ animals we all empathized with. Hence, as a creative analytic practice, reflexive unity acknowledges how knowledge is produced and shared among researchers and respondents (Richardson, 2000), especially when moral beliefs and partial truths shape responses to animal testing.

Utilizing performed ethnography, I hope to engage and educate audiences about non-violent social change since it demonstrates a dialogic cycle of action and reflection focused on sentient liberation (Harlop & Aristiziabal, 2013). Like Freire’s (1970) dialogic practice, reflexive education becomes the practice of freedom. When I incorporate ahisma as do-no-harm dialogue, theatre becomes a life-affirming moral praxis.

Animals as Moral Agents

I was intrigued with the notion of animals as moral agents, who, as conscious, sentient beings, deserve our compassion and empathy. But how can audiences gain a similar understanding of the sentient experience, when all around them sentience has been devalued? By bringing the life- affirming accounts of ‘open rescues’ to the reader/viewer, I facilitate research informed theatre as an embodied, interactive exploration of sentience using characters, scenes and dramatic themes to engage a broader audience. Taking the ‘open rescue’ narrative off the written page and putting it in a accessible physical space allows audiences to enter into the moral realm of the

102

animal imaginatively, or as Canadian educator Dorothy Litchbau (2009) explains, it allows the audience to feel, “…as if we were currently experiencing them” (p. 258).

Research informed theatre scripts allow audience members to physically, emotionally, and cognitively enter into the moral realm of captive ‘research’ animals. By engaging a wider audience through RIT scripts, individuals can investigate different moral perspectives such as the intrinsic value of the animal as object (i.e. van Vlissingen suggestion of killing mice for their own well-being or ‘good of its own’) versus the intrinsic value Participant Y ascribes to rescued mice as subjects worthy of, “… empathizing with the conditions that they…live under” (Interview with Participant Y: 2nd March, 2013).

I believe research informed theatre provides for a social and moral understanding of sentience beyond traditional research practices, by informing audiences of the intrinsic value of ‘research’ animals. Play scripts allow for an intimate examination of ‘open rescue’ narratives, especially those relational qualities of knowledge and stories about sentience told in more than one way (Litchbau, 2009). Whether audience members value or devalue animals (or are stuck somewhere in the middle), their choices and actions influence the quality and account of the theatrical experience (Wagner, 1998). By ethically engaging theatre patrons, research scripts make connections to their personal and social knowledge of vivisection, thus engaging in a dialectical process that shifts their moral understanding (Dewey, 1997; O’Neill, 2006). In learning about the intrinsic value of animals through open rescue scripts, audience members come to know of disturbing experiences like vivisection, which demands an empathetic response to either change it or change ourselves.

RIT as Imaginative Reconstructions

By asking moral questions about an animal’s intrinsic value, RIT enables imaginative reconstructions (Litchbau, 2009). For example, audience members can challenge taken-for- granted meanings concerning sentience and attune themselves to unconscious knowledge - something traditional qualitative research have yet to do. Like performative inquiry, performance ethnography provides a window through which audiences can envision alternate existences (Greene, 1995).

103

For example, RIT scripts redefine the moral agency of ‘research’ animals, as it allows the broader public to empathize with mice, rats, cats and dogs in a way that has not been foreseen. By committing to the moral agency of animals, Zipporah Wiseburg (2009) argues, “if we are to see the project of [sentient] liberation through….we need to do more than simply redefine agency. We need to politicize it” (p. 34).

Altering a speciesist mindset that devalues sentience is an ethically and politically risky endeavour. Yet, the sureness of respondent’s answers to the intrinsic value of each animal they rescued convinced me that RIT scripts had the greatest potential to be “emotionally and politically evocative” (Leavy, 2008, p. 12). In promoting the intrinsic worth of ‘research’ animals, especially in empathizing with their suffering, arts-based qualitative research can expand parameters of moral agency, holding universities accountable to commonly held notions of what is right and wrong with animal testing.

How Art May Inspire Subjective Interconnectivity

Subjective interconnectivity cannot be done in parts (i.e. ‘open rescue’ stories that entertain but refrain from upsetting a speciesist patriarchy) if RIT is to be a holistic tool for social change. French philosopher Simone Weil (as cited in Avery 2008) asserts that critical and reflective knowledge needs to focus attention back onto other animals – our gaze must be interconnected with sentient beings. Writing about the caring deficit among vivisectors, Weil (Avery 2008) writes that human beings must reclaim the body from its detached positon, posing questions like, “What are you going through?” so that we are, “willing and able to hear the answer” (p .327).

I contend that when research-based theatre asks these questions, the reader/viewer marries the subjective with the experiential in order to answer what kind of suffering an animal endures. Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1962; 1964) notes how perceptions of sentience cannot be decompressed into a collection of sensations since the whole is prior to the parts, given that perceptions are found in a broader constellation of its actions. Correspondingly, feminist care theorists using quantum physics, ecology and spiritualism assert that the nature of reality is a web of interconnections, a circle representing “the whole”. Kheel (2007) suggests, “[j]ust as quantum physics cannot predict atomic events with certainty at exact times and specific places,

104

so too we cannot postulate that one species or one individual is of greater or lesser value than another” (p. 44).

As a creative analytic practice, open rescue scripts can present a credible account of the lived experiences of animals and make a substantive contribution to society’s understanding of sentient life beyond the value-laden hierarchy found inside university research facilities (Richardson, 2000). Moreover, as an arts-based research method, RIT helps people better understand the world of the ‘research’ animal and promotes dialogue about their plight (Ellis, 2000). But can RIT impact audiences enough to spur social action? As a holistic practice, open rescue scripts detail liberating moments that resonate with our own experiences of freedom. Bearing witness and interpreting stories about animal suffering, allows individuals to perceive the subjective emotional, physical and spiritual state of the liberated animals as our own. Hence, the individual finds identity in a whole society where communities find just cause to end subjugation of an oppressed sentient group. When the cause of animal welfare and rights protections is taken up by concerned citizens, the resulting effect is an enhancement of human rights – an interconnectedness that is fine-tuned in RIT scripts.

A clear example of art enabling holistic change is in Sweden where a vocal animal-welfare lobby expanded their focus from liberating animals in scientific experiments to protecting animals from factory farming (Lohr, 1988). A Swedish lobby group launched an animal-welfare campaign led by writer Astrid Lindgren (best-known for creating the children’s book, ''Pippi Longstocking'') who wrote a series of satirical animal fables in leading newspapers. In one such fictional tale, God comes back down to Earth after a long absence only to find that animals are being routinely abused by human beings. A literate public, attuned to the plight of animals, soon put pressure on Swedish legislators to enact animal rights legislation which, in turn, succeeded in banning factory farms several years later (Sztybel, 2007).

A recent study commissioned by Animal Rights Sweden noted that one out of every ten Swedes is either a vegan or vegetarian; with nearly fifty per cent of those polled saying their decision was influenced by their concern for animal welfare (Molloy, 2014). Reciprocating intersubjective relationships fueled by storytelling enabled social change among species groups in Sweden, benefiting both human and non-human animals. Holism focuses on our relationships,

105

responsibilities and a reverence to all life forms in an interconnected world. Therefore, new knowledge in the form of ‘open rescue’ narratives can help construct relationships within the context in which a person lives, engaging their concern with the conscious whole while giving voice to oppressed groups (Holistic Education Network, 2011). By revealing animal testing as a speciesist discourse, RIT scripts can contextualize how meanings shape animal lives and how those meanings can change when audience emotions and intellect are attuned to the sentient whole. I agree with Elisa Aaltola’s (2015) sentimentalist assessment of “encaging oneself in states of mutual attunement” with other animals (p. 214). Intersubjective familiarity among animals breeds holism, wherein subjective parts are intimately interconnected so that they cannot exist independently of that sentient whole – a political world becomes responsive to the sentient community.

Research-Informed Theatre as Shared Emotional Experience

As an artist-educator and graduate researcher at OISE/UT engaged in political activism, RIT provides a methodological avenue to effectively share my research findings with an audience, either within the University of Toronto or “outside the academy” (Goldstein, 2012, p. 116). In advancing an animal turn in academia, I researched the liberation of animals from university laboratories, and wrote three one-act scripts for multiple audiences. I observed and interviewed three individuals (two were students and the other person a political scientist) who undertook open rescues of ‘research’ animals from university laboratories.

Soon thereafter, I adapted the true-life testimonials of the animal rescues into research-informed theatre scripts in order to, “evoke and invoke [a] shared emotional experience and understanding between the performers and the audience” (Goldstein, 2012, p. 4-5) Notably, the fictional characters in the dramatic scripts I developed have experienced the same conflicts and dilemmas culled from the participant interviews – character names were added and in one case, a rescuer’s gender was reversed. Goldstein (2012) contends that the activist component within arts-based research involves a committed artist-researcher, and “[t]his process requires both confidence in

106

your writing and an emotional resilience. Often this resilience comes from a deep commitment to seeing particular projects staged for a public audience” (p. 115).

As a researcher committed to social justice, RIT gives me an opportunity to explore a sober topic that is hard to represent (animal experimentation) since it evokes ongoing emotions of fear, hope, loss, resistance and suffering. As a holistic tool for social change, RIT becomes a vital tool for public engagement, because as Australian playwright Ben Ellis (Glow 2007) contends,”[o]ur avenues for political discourse have closed down so much that when we have plays about [animal testing]… topics that we haven’t really discussed a lot, I think audiences want to hear that….” (p. 11). Holism thus provides a unique opportunity to reshape sentience in front of a live audience.

Animal Suffering: Artists Engage Emotions

Since there are few avenues to consider the suffering of animals, performed ethnography can be that vehicle, necessitating a public discourse about animal suffering and whether animals are worthy or unworthy of sentient empathy. But does the audience want to hear about the suffering of a transgenic mouse bred with cancer? Will they find the ‘open rescue’ of mice emotionally engaging? I believe the evocative power of RIT to get audiences to indulge empathetically in animal suffering need not be ideologically dogmatic terrain but instead, an emotionally life affirming event. In Chapter Three, I provided an analysis of participants’ affect on and reaction to ‘open rescue’, noting that the affirmation of life in the language they used to liberate animals was more prevalent than language that denied life.

Research-Informed Theatre as Transformative Research

Research-Informed Theatre (RIT) employs qualitative methods of research that draw on the potential of art to be a holistic tool for social change. In Method Meets Art: Arts-Based Research Practice, Patricia Leavy (2008) argues that qualitative research-questions employ transdisciplinary arts-based methods that are, “emotionally and politically evocative, captivating, aesthetically powerful and moving” (p. 12). As a critical methodology, RIT becomes a transformative practice since it incorporates the study of speciesist clinical practices that harm

107

animals and offers a credible alternative (‘open rescue’) to end animal suffering on campus. In so doing, my research does not merely focus on informing the public about animal testing. Instead, utilizing arts-based research allows the aesthetic and evocative spirit to transform the hearts and minds of an indifferent and apathetic public. Witnessing animal suffering and responding empathetically moves us past disease pathology (i.e. ‘war on cancer’) that links the deaths of animals with a quasi-affirmation of life, treating physical symptoms of human diseases as ‘scientific breakthroughs’.

In eschewing a pathologized mindset that puts human beings first, art-based research becomes a tool for social change as it embraces holism where the sentient parts of ‘the whole’ are intimately interconnected. Since sentient empathy cannot exist independently of the interconnected whole, holism understands that the needs of one species are inherently linked to other species’ needs.

In responding to detractors of qualitative research, Ronald Chenail (2008) defends the use of arts-inspired research, noting that,

Somehow we accept the numbering and prosaic wording more easily than the poetic discourse, dance, or performance. Writing about music is like dancing about architecture… we all must somehow transform what we think and what we observe into a mode of representation and communication that is unlike the thought or sense (p. 9).

But in heeding the call for arts-based research methodologies, Chenail (2008) suggests a clear commitment to transparency, similar to quantitative fields of research,

…sharing of the artistic choice making process through which the art formed. This clarity in transformation would help me appreciate the compelling authenticity claimed by arts-based researchers and value the evocative political, consciousness- raising, emancipatory re-presentations I find in the stories, images, sounds, and scenes (p. 10).

Leavy (2009) suggests that transparency in arts-based research “develop[s] a new kind of practice-based language to explain and facilitate these new transdisciplinary research practices, including evaluative practices” (p. 257). I address concerns of transparency in previous chapters by utilizing a practice-based language wherein dramatic script(s) make academic writing more

108

accessible to the general public and stir an emotive response to animal testing on university campuses.

Gunkle: Empathy in the Arts

As stated earlier in the chapter, animal empathy is bereft of academic concern or published research. Correspondingly, empathy in the arts and, especially the dramatic arts, has been almost completely overlooked by empirical research workers. Writing in the Educational Theatre Journal, George Gunkle (1963) reports that only one study was undertaken with a direct focus upon empathy in theatre (p. 21). Nevertheless, Gunkle (1963) concludes,

…that while the behavioral science notion of empathy as a predictive ability appears to involve a cognitive process rather than an emotional one, such an approach may nevertheless have relevance to the theatre…. Empathy is at once a panacea for theatrical ills and an expression of all that is valuable to an audience in the theatre experience (p. 22).

Manifestly, Gunkle’s observation from fifty-two years ago does not negate the insignificance of empathy within post-millennial academic circles. Rather, it highlights what feminists have been saying about the insidious power of a rationalist mindset: those emotive representations in scientific research have been historically silenced. Hence, can a play about animal experiments within universities elicit sentient empathy among a wider public?

I believe a research project highlighting ‘open rescue’ as a form of sentient empathy is a much- needed response to the invisibility of animal suffering within Canadian universities. As a feminist caring response, I hope to tear down a speciesist wall of protected space at the University of Toronto, where apathy and indifference to animal experimentation is not only given tacit approval, but rewarded. Compellingly, sharing the stories of ‘open rescue’ with the general public will convince them of its usefulness.

Research Informed Theatre: “Breaking the Silence”

The process of righting historical wrongs and sharing different points of view is a clear example of the intent of research-informed theatre: to raise awareness, propose alternatives, provide healing, and inspire change (Goldstein, 2012). A remarkable example of the power of

109

ethnographic theatre is playwright and performance artist Anna Deavere Smith’s (1994) production of Twilight – Los Angeles, 1992, a documentary theatre piece without a storyline, lead character(s) or an established dialogue. Basing her ethnographic script entirely on 200 interviews, Deavere Smith poured over witness statements from the Rodney King race riots in Los Angeles. Deavere Smith transformed her ethnographic research into staged monologues that portrayed the emotions and experiences of forty-five characters –Smith plays every character. Smith’s motivation to perform a one-woman show about one of the most violent episodes in American history was to enrich the audiences’ understanding of American race conflicts. Smith (1994) outlines her reason for using research-informed theatre to “break the silence” around race,

Many of us who work in race relations do so from the point of view of our own ethnicity. This very fact inhibits our ability to hear more voices than those that are closest to us in proximity. Few people speak a language about race that is not their own. If more of us could actually speak from another point of view, like speaking another language, we could accelerate the flow of ideas….If we were able to move more frequently beyond these boundaries, we would develop multifaceted identities and we would develop a more complex language (p. 25).

Respectively, consider RIT’s ability to penetrate that insufferable wall of silence that censures the voices of animals and the people who care about them. From my research interviews, each character I created thereafter (“Rita”, “Jana”, and “Pat”) displays a disturbed psyche, as they struggle to break the silence endemic of a medico-scientific superstructure that belittles their concerns about animal testing. On the other end of the spectrum, when that silence is broken, each character is somewhat relieved to describe their animal rescue(s) as an emotionally life- affirming event. But how does a student or an academic researcher acquire a critical awareness to affect social change (i.e. animal liberation) when that individual is (un)consciously immersed in mechanized structures of oppression like our education system?

Freire: “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”

In “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” a classic critique of structural oppression, educational philosopher Paulo Freire (2007) warns the reader that the gravest impediment to achieving social change is the oppressive reality that absorbs students and educators, which in turn, submerges human consciousness. Remarking on how oppressor consciousness materializes concepts of

110

existence, Freire writes that those who benefit by oppressing others transform everything into objects to be purchased and exploited, like animals. Such a climate creates a violent and strongly possessive consciousness that is possessive of the world and the natural systems it inhabits similar to a bio-medical speciesist mindset that denies sentient empathy. Freire (1970) asserts that in de-familiarizing oneself from the dominant discourse that denies sentience, the individual begins a transformative process toward a critical consciousness that can overthrow an oppressor consciousness. Noting the transformation among audience members, German theatre director Bertolt Brecht (1949) asserted that such critical consciousness came to symbolize “minority dissent” (p. 64).

What is refreshing to students (and educators) who want to challenge speciesist notions that objectify animals is Freire’s (2007) call to overthrow an oppressor consciousness to transform society. As Freire (2007) suggests, “[t]o no longer be prey to its force, one must emerge from it and turn upon it. This can be done only by means of the praxis: reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (p. 44).

From my research transcripts, I noted a liberating praxis among two respondents who challenged an oppressive reality by citing disability discourse. Freire’s praxis has inspired cultural and social movements throughout the world, particularly in his native Brazil, where his critical pedagogy movement became the catalyst for revolutionary change. In 1973, Freire inspired Brazilian artistic director Augusto Boal (1993) to publish “Theatre of the Oppressed”, where Boal established legislative theatre as a consciousness-raising praxis that bridged the gap between theater and politics.

Breaking the Silence II: Instilling Complex Language and Empathetic Imagery

One of my aims for using Research Informed Theatre (RIT) is to develop “another language” that moves us beyond the established sentient boundary where animal suffering is an acceptable (and silent) response within popular culture and mainstream science. RIT has the capability to develop a more complex language inclusive of sentient empathy and animal subjectivity.

111

Developing another language that affirms sentience is necessary because it focuses on whose story does and does not get told within research. If “ethnographies are invented by ethnographers” (Goldstein, 2012, p. 3), deconstructing language becomes an essential tool to demystifying powerful discourses that can either oppress or liberate animals.

The authenticity of my open rescue responses, and the scripted language of care and empathy it proffers, may appeal to a larger audience because it provides a non-violent solution to a pressing social problem. Discussing why Twilight monologues appealed to members of the community, particularly among racial groups in Los Angeles, Deavere Smith (1994) contends,

I performed it at a time when the community had not yet resolved the problems. I wanted to be part of their examination of the problems. I believe that solutions to these problems will call for the participation of large and eclectic groups of people [my italics]. I also believe that we are at a stage at which we must first break the silence about race and encourage many more people to participate in the dialogue (p. 24).

As a person who does not eat meat or harm animals, I was fascinated to learn how animals freed from laboratories for the first time would respond to human beings, who were once their torturers and oppressors. An ‘open rescue’ respondent explained that animals have a greater capacity for forgiveness than many human beings give them credit for. Is this not part of a multifaceted animal identity that can promote a more complex language and understanding of care and sentience among community members?

The transformative power of RIT to engage “minority dissent” using a more complex language and empathetic imagery furthers an anti-speciesist discourse that challenges protected spaces surrounding animal testing. Revealingly, empathetic imagery has been used synonymously with theatrical illusion where, taken to its logical extreme, it has been extended to mean a state of near-hypnosis among audience members (Brecht. 1949). As the speciesist walls are penetrated, empathetic imagery expands beyond the theatrical realm and into social media networks that have global significance.

‘Breaking the silence’ can be a cathartic theatrical experience. The Twilight-Los Angeles, 1992 production toured across the United States and was received enthusiastically by audiences and critics alike. New Yorker theatre critic John Lahr praised Twilight for reclaiming the stage in its,

112

“crucial role as a leader” since it “[b]ears theatrical witness to the barbarity not just of violence but of envy…”; Variety noted that audience members left the show, “knowing more” and Newsweek described Twilight as a “masterpiece” noting that, as an American tragedy, it expressed, “… the hearts and of the people who were part of it” (as cited in Smith, 1994).

Research-Informed Theatre (RIT) allows the reader, the viewer and the listener to penetrate (with their heart and ) the sentient surface around animal experimentation that is presumptive of human superiority. As a life-affirming movement capable of transforming our relationships with the natural world, ‘open rescue’ narratives offer empathetic images and a complex language of interspecies expression that challenge dated and dangerous scientific precepts. Furthermore, as a holistic tool for social change, I believe RIT can intensify public awareness about animal testing by focusing on the liberating successes of the ‘open rescue’ movement. By expanding the sentient playing field, my ethnographic scripts evoke the lived experiences of merciful rescuers who bear witness to animal suffering and engage in direct action to save animals from university laboratories. By presenting the point of view of the animal rescuer (contrary to the official discourse that vilifies carers of animals), RIT reflects on the moral and ethical underpinnings of a speciesist science, its power and the partialness of its truths (Goldstein, 2012).

Observing people as people, I believe we all have different versions of ourselves at different moments in time. Quite possibly, RIT allows people to be less judgemental in a theatrical setting as they await an aesthetic experience that may not only entertain, but be thought-provoking as it unsettles emotions and ideas concerning empathy for animals. As a form of research, RIT draws on the potential of art to be “emotionally and politically evocative, captivating, aesthetically powerful and moving” (Leavy, 2008, p. 12).

Agitate, Unsettle, Criticize, and Challenge

As a socially responsible educator and someone who cares deeply about animals, I believe RIT may provide a creative opportunity to tear down the wall of protected space at the University of Toronto, which makes animal suffering invisible. By focusing on the troubling issue of animal experimentation in Canadian universities, performance ethnography attempts to, “decolonize the power relations” (Behar, 1994, p. 3) implicit in the presentation of animals as ‘the Other’.

113

American sociologist Norman Denzin (2003) believes exposure to arts-based research can be a powerfully reflexive tool because it has the potential to “unsettle, criticize, and challenge taken- for-granted, repressed meanings” (p. 123-124). Correspondingly, George Gunkle (1963) reflects on the power of theatre to instill empathy,

When empathy, as defined in the behavioral sciences, is contrasted with empathy as defined in theatre arts, an intriguing spectrum of interpersonal processes is revealed - processes which may well be sufficiently different to deserve separate study and yet which, when taken together, may contribute much to our understanding of the theatre experience…. for which, at present, measures are either inadequate or non-existent (p. 22).

Gunkle (1963) describes the immutable theatrical processes available to audience members: inner imitation; the vicarious arousal of emotion through sympathy and antipathy; aesthetic distance, and the power of theatrical illusion. Thus, the inventiveness of research-informed theatre allows for distinctly different names (‘anti-speciesist theatre’; ‘caring drama’) to be used for distinctly different processes (i.e. emotional arousal of ‘sentient empathy’).

My research project challenges the objectification of animals and the denial of emotive responses. Can audiences empathize with ‘end-points’, allowing emotions to become material to bodies? Research-informed theatre invites a moral and ethical dialogue, recognizing the ‘situatedness’ of animal suffering (Goldstein, 2012). As the ethnographic playwright, I focus the audiences’ attention on critical questions concerning the ‘situadedness’ of animals: What do you know about animal testing? How do we know science saves human lives? How do we know if animals can or cannot feel pain? Who do you know that harms or destroys animals? Is animal suffering a political issue? By allowing audience members to reflect on these questions, I expand their critical knowledge base about animal testing, so that a wider public learns that feelings do matter, especially sentient empathy.

By moving beyond the typical graduate research model where academic advisors review my qualitative study so that it may be approved for on-line publication, I present an aesthetic and authentic text where its merits can be judged (and acted upon) by the community at large. RIT allows the public to access academic research dramatically so they can contemplate moral issues that “reckon with evil” (Power, 2002, p. xvii).

114 Apathy versus Ethical Engagement

When considering ethical relationships with sentient beings, research informed theatre questions a positivist science where animal ethics are rooted in the rationalist tradition. I draw on the arts’ potential to be “emotionally and politically evocative” (Leavy, 2008, p. 12) by presenting compelling testimonials of animal suffering to audience members so they can consider its ethical implications. For example, the ‘experience taking’ effect within dramatic performance, allows audience members to change their behaviour by subtly imitating the ethical behaviour of characters on stage. The possibility that audience members may empathize with either, the protagonist, antagonist or both points to the potential of theatre to explore ethical topics that are all but avoided in daily conversations (Goldstein, 2012).

I assert that open rescue narratives nurture an emotional response from the public, as it informs them of dramatic moments of suffering, loss, love, hope, empathy and liberation. Opening up the sentient conversation to emotional responses (rather than rationalized indifference) paves the way for moral deliberations. In fact, Finnish philosopher Elisa Aaltola (2015) points to emotions, not reason, as the moral psychological impetus for treating animals as moral beings. Aaltola contends that learning affective empathy toward other animals comes from the intersubjective practice of people coming face to face with animal suffering. This quality illustrates how the power of emotions can develop moral agency or the ability of sentient beings to act independently to make their own ethical choices.

Whereas an apathetic person may argue that she/he is not morally implicated in the subjugation of other animals, I contend that a rationalist science engrains species biases so deeply that an individual may not even recognize that she/ he is disconnected from sentient (inter)subjectivity. In arguing for greater sentimentalism in animal ethics, Aaltola (2015) asserts that, “…affective empathy emerges as a prime criterion for moral agency and judgement” because it counters a reason-based animal ethic which remains, “hopelessly unpersuasive and detached” (p. 215). Whereas sentient empathy accepts that because every animal, including human beings, has moral agency, it is incumbent on sentient beings to protect each other from harm and suffering. As an advocate of embodied empathy, Dan Zahavi (2008) argues that when the body reveals the mind,

115

a “mode of being within” allows human and non-human animals to understand each other and communicate prior to inferencing (p. 520). Lipp (1903b) asserts that animals display a form of aesthetic empathy where there is complete identification between the observer and the actions of the observed animal (p. 191). Similarly, Stueber (2006) argues that empathy, as a reciprocally intersubjective practice, allows people to solve basic problems with other minds using self- reflective and self-critical analysis. Interrogatively, Stueber motivates us to ask: What am I doing wrong that could cause such a distress in an animal’s life?

Cognitive ethologist Barbara Smuts (2001) refers this mutual interconnectivity as a ‘presence’ since we recognize someone so like ourselves in their essence that we can co-conceive a “shared reality as equals” (p. 308). After studying in the wild, Smuts (2001) asserts that intersubjective attunement among species groups promotes, “learning a whole new way of being in the world” (p. 293). Open rescuers seem to do what comes naturally, like freeing a sentient being from immediate danger, so that reciprocity can resonate. Hoffman (1981) views empathy as a biologically based disposition for altruistic behavior where modes of arousal allow a wider audience to respond empathetically to a variety of distress cues from other beings. Hoffman (2000) maintains that mimicry, , and direct association enable empathy because ‘the other's’ situation reminds one of one's own painful experience. Thus, my automatic response to an animal in distress produced sentient empathy as I would expect my loved ones to rescue me in my hour of need.

Creating the conditions that invite people to reconnect with their imaginations (i.e. mind reading; cathartic break-throughs, imagining differently by experience taking) respects the expertise of people themselves and follows a plan of action mapped out in the Critical Education Spiral Circle depicted in Figure 1. As a practice of education activism, ‘open rescue’ scripts erode the passive role impressed on a disaffected public. An empowered audience that refuses to accept the world as it is (as opposed to creative manifestation of what it could be) fosters what Freire (1970) terms, “critical consciousness” (p. 174). Thus, critical consciousness challenges institutional indifference to animal suffering; evocative stories of ‘open rescue’ attune audience members to intersubjective life experiences with other animals which can foster sentient empathy. Instead of human beings predisposed to harming animals, we intervene with urgency

116

and empathy to transform that world. Freire (1970) is forthright in his support of an activist pedagogy that reaches out to sentient communities, as “… this fight, because of the purpose given it by the oppressed, will actually constitute an act of love opposing the lovelessness which lies at the heart of the oppressors' violence, lovelessness even when clothed in false generosity” (p.95).

By making arts-based research accessible to a broader public, I allow dialogue to generate critical thinking among and with individuals, which transcends the guaranteed space of positivist science. On the importance of transforming an oppressive reality using critical thinking, Pierre Furter (1966) asserts, “[t[he universe is revealed to me not as a space, imposing a massive presence to which I can but adapt, but as a domain which takes shape as I act upon it” (p. 26-27).

RIT scripts provide an activist-educational space where sentient truths are revealed to and acted upon by audience members. Incorporating Freire’s concept of critical consciousness we are able to transform our reality by upending our devotion to speciesist values through social justice pedagogy with links to arts-based qualitative research. Building on ethnographic frameworks that entertain and educate audience members helps to build community and nurture empathy for other animals. Moreover, by questioning how and why researchers harm animals, I encourage students and educators to become socially responsible as well. Hence, when an animal screams out in pain, our natural impulse is to react to that suffering not to over-rationalize their pain in order to deny it. By bearing witness to animal suffering, open rescuers engage in sentient empathy – urgently extending concern and care to rescue sentient beings. Sentient empathy reveals a conflict-solving approach within the framework of activist education that attunes a wide public to its benefits. Thus, RIT, as transformational activism (versus oppositional activism), avoids rhetoric that preaches. Instead, RIT listens to questions reflectively rather than dogmatically answering them.

Ethnographer Anna Deavere Smith (Johnson 2012) contends that research informed theatre must build public consciousness by allowing more diverse voices to tell their stories. When research informed theatre provides space for outsider opinions to contradict medical interpretations of violence toward animals, it empowers learning and consciousness building. Given the opportunity to directly confront and challenge a system of speciesist injustice, I expand upon an

117

activist education pedagogy based on trust, openness, honesty, self-critique, mutual respect and support (Change Agency, 2015). Building empathy with mice and rats instils an appreciation for diversity as it promotes multiple meanings concerning sentience that can reach a larger audience.

It is imperative that the wider public resist the values of an elite scientific culture. A vibrant resistance can manifest by resurrecting feminist caring principles that incorporate ‘open rescue’ as a critical discourse of species in the new millennium. By questioning the rationalist science behind animal experimentation, ‘open rescue’ scripts become a tool of critical discourse, offering students and educators an avenue to re-sensitize themselves back into the sentient world.

Correspondingly, by expanding upon an arts-based qualitative research practice that can affect holistic social change, I address the challenges of social justice education, specifically how research informed theatre (RIT) can counteract public apathy toward animal testing. In expanding our sentient world to include other animals, US multicultural educator Nadine Dolby (2012) urges human beings to listen carefully to the stories “…animals and the natural world have to tell us” (p. 65).

In early 2015, the Quebec National Assembly passed a bill that proposed animals should be considered "sentient beings" instead of property. In tabling the bill, Quebec Agriculture Minister Pierre Paradis ruled that animals, like humans, should not be made to unduly suffer. The Quebec government’s new animal rights legislation imposed fines of up to $250,000 and jail time for repeat abusers of animals. In advancing the cause of animal rights, the legislation proclaims that, "animals are not things… [t]hey are sentient beings and have biological needs" (The Canadian Press, 2015).

With greater equanimity, Quebec has moved in line with Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia with the strongest animal-welfare laws in Canada. I, like Dolby, believe that exploring the true-life accounts of animal rescues and dramatizing these stories to a larger audience is an exciting new approach to developing global consciousness, one that has the potential to transform how students and educators see and relate to sentient beings, particularly toward building greater empathy with other animals.

118 The Challenge of Social justice Education

Animal testing has become a contentious moral and ethical issue in the new millennium as pro- and anti-vivisection forces weigh in on the sentient rights of animals in research facilities. But at the University of Toronto (UT), where ninety thousand animals were used in research experiments in 2011 (University of Toronto Freedom of Information, 2011), students and faculty members are either oblivious or indifferent to the suffering of animals in university laboratories. When examining why public apathy about animal testing persists, I considered how animals were portrayed within science. Animals are denied their sentient character using scientific language and symbols that adhere to a speciesist form of consciousness. When university researchers label a dog, rabbit, cat or mouse as a ‘model’ or ‘barrier reactive’, it conveniently displaces the suffering of that animal from our conscious minds, which makes the animal(s) appear invisible.

When medical science empties violence from language, animals function as absent referents (Adams, 2006) lacking sentience, which allows human beings to objectify animals and abandon their moral obligations toward them. Consequently, animal testing does not seem violent or unjust from the perspective of the general public since animals lacking sentience do not exist as subjects-of-a-life (Regan, 1983). Even when evidence appears to show animals being horrifically abused in laboratory experiments, animal sentience has no right to exist other than as rational instruments of scientific ‘research’. Using an arts-based research method like performed ethnography, ‘open rescue’ narratives help to reframe linguistic codes (i.e. animals as sentient beings affirming life versus animals as soulless models denied life). Critical performed ethnography also repositions cultural signs (i.e. sentient empathy as a social custom versus public indifference as a social habit) so that animal suffering is made visible to a broader audience.

When other animals are excluded from rights and protections afforded to humans there is an overt assumption of human supremacy. This form of species exploitation is described as speciesism, and like racism, is an insidious denial of societal membership, which uses violence to subjugate sentient creatures. For example, animal testing results in the deaths of over two million

119

animals every year in Canada even though non-lethal alternatives are available (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2012). But when tests are conducted on human beings, researchers do not kill human subject when testing is completed.

A speciesist double standard exists in scientific research determining who lives and who dies based on their species membership. I try to imagine what it must feel like to be a caged and isolated rabbit inside a university laboratory awaiting to have my eyes burned with chemicals or, as a caged mouse, what my days must feel like having electrodes surgically implanted in my brain to control my behaviour and movement. These types of ‘research’ experiments are carried out on a daily basis inside university laboratories without public awareness, community consultation or a collective call for social justice.

Sentient-friendly Pedagogy: Children and Animals

In contrast, North American children are surrounded by animal imagery that enhances the sentient character of animals. In fact, positive images and symbols of animals abound in children’s books, cartoons, movies, story-telling, pictures, toys and decorations. No other source of children’s imagery can begin to compete with that symbolism of ‘cute’ and ‘cuddly’ animals waiting to be empathized and loved within the pages of Peter Rabbit or Mother Goose Fairy- tales.

Immersed in positive images of animals, children’s literacy heightens the visibility of animals by portraying them as moral protagonists. English literature theorist Alyson Fortowsky (2013) argues that art promotes empathy. For example, children’s literature allows the author to incorporate technical choices into the story like repetition, motifs, symbols, biases of the characters, and the reader’s bias to evoke literal interpretations of animals as sentient beings. Subverting speciesist imagery provides for an expansion of perspective (Fortowsky, 2013) allowing children at a very young age to recognize the inherent worth of sentient beings without feeling the need to adapt to an “oppressor consciousness” (Freire,1970) which legitimizes harming animals.

120

Recent shows that people empathize more with characters in fictional stories than with figures in biographical accounts. Psychologist Keith Oatley (as cited in Taylor, 2011) asserts that a movie, play, story, poem or novel creates a mental model in which readers can try out ideas about themselves and others. Citing the Journal of Personality and Social , Globe and Mail writer Russell Smith (2012) reports that when children read or listen to fiction, they learn to empathize by changing their behaviour to subtly imitate the behaviour of the characters they had just read about, an affect called “experience taking” (para. 2).

Children’s fictional books (Curious George; Scaredy Squirrel; The Three Little Pigs) and novels (Free Willy; Charlotte’s Web; A Whale For The Killing and Never Cry Wolf) offer a vision of animals as autonomous members of a sentient community who can teach life lessons to other animals, including human beings. It goes to reasons that transcribing real life accounts of open rescue into play-scripts using fictional characters may enhance “experience taking” (Smith, 2012, para. 2). By targeting viewers/readers, notions of sentience become altered as we ascribe sentience to animals in research and adopt empathetic behaviour toward them.

Middle Class Aesthetics Enabling Sentience

In a teaching environment where sentient creatures are adored, John Berger (2009) contends that 19th century reproductions of animals became a regular part of the decor of middle class childhoods. By predisposing twenty-first century values onto middle class primary school children, I assert that educators reflect the changing role of animals within curricula as they become increasingly endangered or objectified into extinction. Thus, bears, lions, tigers and elephants, threatened with extinction, reflect the sentient turn in Language and Science curriculums.

The promotion of a sentient friendly pedagogy in elementary schools is a sign of that ‘animal turn’, one that is drastically remiss as students get older and enroll in post-secondary institutions. As an elementary school teacher, I feel morally responsible to help defenceless animals. I would contend that social justice education is able to promote the visibility of animals within post- secondary schools where complacent students are weaned off of emotive responses toward animals. A sentient detachment among college and university students is a challenge to

121 practitioners of animal ethics and social justice since educators (and students) may not regard the killing of ‘research’ animals as an injustice.

In a generational vacuum, animal invisibility becomes more prolific as we get older. I wanted to reverse this trend by making my peers aware of animal testing using social justice education. But before I explore how to enlist the public’s attention about harmful animal experiments, I offer two personal instances where animal invisibility reveals a moral morass within a community of learners.

Example One: Activist Silence in Curriculum, Teaching and Learning

As an animal activist enrolled in the Curriculum, Teaching and Learning department at OISE, I was struck by the profound silence surrounding the issue of animal testing at the University of Toronto. While attending a graduate studies course entitled “Pedagogies of Solidarity” at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), I informally asked fellow students how they made intersectional links of oppression with animals, since many students were passionate about seeking social justice for, and solidarity with, marginalized groups. I was met with blank stares and in one memorable exchange, a fellow student, who ate animals, remarked that her activism stopped at the end of her fork exclaiming, “…I have to eat!”

Example Two: Educating Daughters

As an elementary school teacher employed by the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), I tirelessly program components of social justice education into every aspect of the assigned Ontario teaching curriculum. So much so, that parents demand assurances that what I am teaching is actually defined under Ministry of Education guidelines, which all unit plans must adhere to.

In early 2014, my Grade Five/Six class completed a Mathematics and Science unit on McDonald Restaurant’s farming and labour practices. Afterward, one parent remarked sullenly that her daughter would no longer eat meat after her daughter had viewed a YouTube video in class revealing the deplorable conditions of chickens and hens in North American factory farms which supplied the restaurant’s egg “McMuffins” and chicken “McNuggets”. As proud as I was that

122

social justice education could affect ethical change in one of my students, I reassured the parent that studying farming practices that negatively impacted animals was an Ontario Curriculum science expectation. I also explained that mass production of chickens buttressed McDonald’s executive salaries but not the salaries of its minimum-waged workers, which covered a Grade Six Mathematics expectation by asking students to analyse and compare income ratios using multi-digit numeracy. I empathized with the parent’s predicament, especially the amount of time, money and effort required to create two distinct meal plans – animal and plant-based.

Social Justice: Changing the Social Gaze

In sharing these personal experiences with the reader, one issue seems to attract less attention - the suffering of animals - which appears inconsequential to the demands of human self-interest. From my experiences as an activist-educator, traditional forms of activism and pedagogy cloak the visibility of animal suffering, so much so, that my peers fail to empathize with animals as an oppressed group. Considering animal liberation as a social justice issue, I wondered why human beings seemed unconcerned with speciesist oppression. And secondly, I wanted to find out how social justice education could address the invisibility of animals in laboratories in ways that would return the publics’ gaze onto sentient beings.

As a graduate student attending a Canadian university that practices vivisection, I posit that the killing of animals for ‘research’ is a social justice issue. I contend that animals, as subjects-of-a- life, are oppressed by harsh conditions, which eventually lead to their murder under scientific scrutiny.

Social Justice: Transforming Consciousness

Oppressed groups, with their allies, seek out social justice by challenging the enormous inequalities within institutions that deny cultural identity, equitable treatment, rights protections, and a fair allocation of community resources (Robinson, 2015). “Social justice” recognizes and affirms the struggle of oppressed groups by turning “the social gaze on their humanity” (Hanley, 2013, p. 2). Yet, as an oppressed group, animals are denied humanity simply because they are not considered sentient beings. As follows, animal suffering is made negligible; the silence

123

surrounding animal testing in universities reflects the absolute (and profitable) domain of a positivist science adhering to a ‘publish or perish’ paradigm that sanctions do-harm research. These archaic institutional mechanisms that breach sentience will be further examined later in this chapter, focusing on how researchers rationalize disease pathology, external inconsistencies and an enforced marginalization that continues to harm animals.

As an anti-oppressive practice, social justice recognizes the unfair treatment of animals, particularly when non-lethal alternatives exist, which could save millions of animal lives. By refocusing our sentient gaze onto the inequitable treatment of animals (as an oppressive ‘ism’), more people may revert their focus back toward the animal as a way of empathizing with their plight. A similar transformation of consciousness occurred during American civil rights campaigns to end racial segregation in the early 1960’s and during equal rights campaigns that promoted the rights of homosexuals in the late twentieth century. Inevitably, when millions of animals are routinely objectified and then made into disposable ‘endpoints’, the social gaze on their animality will likely remain invisible to the public. To break down walls of invisibility, social justice education must turn our gaze onto the suffering mouse as a way of informing the public about the merciless nature of animal testing.

Promoting Identity and Culture

Social justice education advances autonomy for oppressed groups by applying pedagogical approaches that challenges the invisibility of animals. Using cultural evaluation and critical tools to peel back the identity of ‘the Other’, social justice educators can promote an understanding of animal sentience. Hence, the liberation of animals represents a social justice cause, since animals (and their allies) seek to redefine their identity by turning society’s gaze onto their animality. By challenging speciesist privilege, social justice practices reclaim the culture of other animals, which has been profoundly altered by human beings.

The challenge of social justice education is to make visible what is made intentionally invisible, recognizing that science constructs animal invisibility by denying empathy to non-human animals. Vivisection impedes the development of animal identity (as subjects-of-a life) and

124

limits the possibility of culture-building among species groups, which can only be rectified through the critical study of sentient empathy.

Activism: Oppositional versus Transformative Space

While completing my graduate studies, I attended anti-vivisection vigils held at the University of Toronto and observed several students more upset about distracting banners and anti-vivisection leaflets being distributed than what was going on inside university laboratories. Did they not care that ninety-thousand animals are used annually in UT animal experiments where most of them are killed once the experiments are completed? Instead of a unifying space where students could dialogue about social justice issues, the campus commons became an oppositional space. I began to think of another public venue that was more inviting--where the public’s attention to the concerns of animals in university laboratories could be probed.

Hanley (2013) asserts that imagination and creativity are the source of social justice and art education since, “a just society and an art-form must first be imagined, then [using] media, whether paint, words, or culture, must be transformed” (p.2). Egan (1992) posits that an individual’s imagination has the capacity to think of possibilities beyond what exists. Using art as the mental and physical means of risk taking, decision making and change (Hanley, 2013), the creative process allows the artist to produce evocative and engaging work(s) of art. Stone Hanley (2013) describes the profound nature of human creativity as our ability to transform a hostile world where racism, sexism, speciesism, homophobia, and fascism are rampant.

Proposing that art could be used to envision a more just world for animals, beyond discipline- based art education, I incorporated arts-based research practices that could educate (and entertain) a wider public. Hanley (2013) asserts that our imagination and creativity are liberating ways out of human injustice,

…creativity is empowering; you take risks, test the world, shape media and meaning, and thereby change the world….like eating and breathing, these capacities are essential to each individual and to the survival of the species…. creativity is our hardwired capacity to change the world into what we imagine… and even to establish the moral compass that will determine our direction (p. 3).

125

Staging dramatic scripts of animal rescues attunes audiences to their moral compass. RIT scripts, as intrapersonal creativity, involve a subtle mental shift in the spectators’ moral perspective and a subsequent unravelling of ideas and events (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007).

By utilizing research informed theatre (RIT) as a form of social justice education, the theatre becomes a central and unifying location to capture the audience’s attention as opposed to city streets where public apathy and indifference lingered. Conceptualizing how art can be “a way out of no way”, Hanley et al (2013) explains the cultural significance of social justice arts education,

In the face of closed doors, denied opportunities, and subjugation, the arts often represent…the only way to imagine differently, produce the new, and invigorate and strategize social change. We conceptualize the arts, art education, and social justice not as separate categories or distinct enterprises. We see them as one effort with many manifestations (p. 12-13).

Hanley (2013) describes critics who oppose the merging of art with politics as “dangerous” since they would deny artists the creative imperative to challenge the moral authority of speciesist oppression.

When vivisectionists object to the ‘politically biased’ nature of animal activism, it is the public who chooses to come to the theatre, not only to be entertained, but also to share moral insights into the way human beings treat animals. Using Hanley’s pathway “out of no way”, I redirect the audience’s consciousness using art to skirt adaptive routes of speciesist domination and ideology. In doing so, artistic agency inspires the writing of my RIT scripts. As an activist ethnographer, I made decisions about dynamic layers of meaning, media, purpose and expression that could transform audience members (Hanley, 2013). In a way, I am their RIT ‘tour guide’; I map out a social justice arts education route for curious spectators that highlight unexplored points of sentient interest and ethical concerns about animal testing.

Engaging audience members to transform their consciousness to empathize with ‘the Other’ is my attempt to conceptually ground RIT as social justice arts-based pedagogy, As an advocate for social justice art education, Greene (2001) describes the transformative power of art education to challenge public indifference toward animal testing stating,

126

We are concerned with…opening windows on alternative realities, with moving through doorways into spaces some of us have never seen before. We are interested…in the kind of wide-awakeness that allows for wonder and unease and questioning and the pursuit of what is not yet (p. 44).

After listening to the powerful stories of ‘open rescues’ and adapting these transcripts into RIT scripts, I concur with Greene’s transformative assessment of arts education – new insights and perspectives about animal empathy can change peoples’ lives.

Freire: Education as Activism

When presumably educated, benevolent people are unaware of the issue of animal testing, social justice education must build critical awareness that affects social change. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a classic four-chapter critique of structural oppression, Paolo Freire (2007) warns the reader that the gravest impediment to achieving social change is the oppressive reality that absorbs educators, which in turn, submerges human consciousness. If we consider the many facets of bringing about political or social change, activist strategies come and go but the underlining element of empowered learning still remains: consciousness-building. My research project explores notions of consciousness that can broaden public awareness about animal testing. I challenge speciesist notions of education by adopting a Freireian theoretical approach to social justice education that informs the reader/viewer about his/her oppressor consciousness in order to transform it. When I interviewed open rescuers, each individual mentioned how decentring oneself from a rationalizing scientific discourse brought them closer to the oppressed body, which was “life changing”.

Developing the ‘organic’ or holistic self requires connecting the learner to the rest of his/her life (Cohn & Kottkamp, 1993), especially to the natural world. By working together rather than in isolation, educators and students can decentre the self in order to build ‘moral circles’ that nurture a more empathetic world for animals. It is my intention to explore this vibrant continuum of activism, by creating awareness of ‘open rescue’ using research-informed theatre as a consciousness-raising tool. By trying to shift public sentiment about animal testing, I introduce ‘open rescue’ scripts as an arts-based component of activist education. When the broader public learns and reflects on the harm done to animals, there is a greater possibility of transforming an

127

oppressor consciousness along empathetic lines. By observing the actions of a dedicated few, can a wider public by empowered enough to change behaviour and beliefs that previously condoned harming animals for science? What is apparent from my research transcripts is the transformative nature of activism; each respondent challenges speciesist notions of scientific acculturation that subdues life to the demands of utilitarian mechanization.

Furthermore, how does a person acquire a critical awareness about animal welfare when that individual is (un)consciously immersed in mechanized structures of oppression that suppresses sentience and an empathetic response to speciesist violence? Remarking on how oppressor consciousness materializes concepts of existence, Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (1970) argues that those who benefit from oppressing others transform everything into objects to be purchased and exploited. Such a climate creates a violent and strongly possessive consciousness (i.e. techno-scientific mindset that objectifies animals) that is possessive of the world and the natural systems it inhabits. Imagine an arts-based pedagogy where students could react and reflect on the harm done to ‘research’ animals within university laboratories, allowing their lived experiences (of bearing witness and getting emotionally closer to animal bodies) to dictate best practices that challenge an “oppressor consciousness” that denies sentient empathy. Among a growing cadre of student resisters to animal testing, there is now a greater need for critical education that is based on social justice

Freire (1970) contends that our current “banking’ concept of education imparts an oppressor consciousness onto students so that they adapt to a pedagogy that is uncritical of the status quo (p. 71-71). Freire asserts (1970) that our current education system empowers the oppressor because it stifles critical education since, “…tranquility rests on how well people fit the world the oppressors [has] created, and how little they question it” (p. 76).

Freire (1970) maintains that oppressors are more concerned about, “changing the consciousness of the oppressed” than the situation which oppresses them (p. 74). For example, a science that practices animal testing demands student-researchers learn to adapt to harming animals as opposed to adopting non-lethal alternatives. Immersed in oppressor consciousness, students are invested in a discourse that denies sentience, a discourse of indoctrination allowing students to feel indifferent to animal suffering. Freire (1970) describes the ability of students to adapt to

128

oppressor consciousness as failing to be “truly human” (p. 72). Inevitably, education that indoctrinates merely serves the interests of the oppressors who neither want the oppressive reality of speciesism to be revealed nor transformed into knowledge-based inquiry that resists it. Freire (1970) asserts that oppressors react almost instinctively against social justice education because it “stimulates the critical faculties” (p. 74).

Figure 1: Critical Education Spiral Model (Change Agency, 2015)

Figure 1 depicts how Research-Informed Theatre follows the spiral model of critical inquiry whereby the audience reflects on the ‘open rescue’ experience and incorporates that new information into their critical consciousness. For example, Step 1 may find audience members attending a reading of the play-scripts, observing patterns of behaviour practiced by open rescuers (i.e. do-no-harm ethic toward sentient life or the practice of bearing witness to animal suffering) which inspires the viewer in Step 2 to reflect on their lived experiences as guardians of animals when they were young children –attuning themselves to similar patterns of behavior. Realizing that they too were practicing sentient empathy when they cared for animals at an early age (new information expressed as Step 3), audience members may enliven a larger audience to discuss these findings about sentient empathy or even review the aesthetic merit of the play- scripts over coffee with a friend. Thus, Step 4 may be symbolized as a discussion with a friend or

129

family member over coffee (or tea) about how the ‘open rescue’ of a beagle was beautifully portrayed by the actors on opening night at the Fringe Festival of Theatre, where RIT scripts first premiered. Inspiringly, Step 5 may have coaxed or intrigued members of the public enough to attend the next performance – a course of action that continues the spiral of critical inquiry into alternatives to animal testing. Utilizing RIT, the audience awaits empathetic transformation within an emotively, holistic space which tries to balance the intersubjective sentimentalist with the rational pragmatist in order to reconnect with the natural world.

At its most transformative, the essence of education becomes the practice of ‘dialogic’ freedom. Freire (1970) argues that through the use of dialogue (or dialogics), the oppressed search for program content through a human-world relationship (p. 84). Thus, program content in the form of theatre as praxis engages and educates audiences about social change since it demonstrates a dialogic cycle of action and reflection focused on liberation (Harlop & Aristiziabal, 2013). Freire (2007) describes these liberating actions as “generative themes” where the program content of education becomes the practice of freedom (p. 96). Thus, when RIT scripts expose animal testing to a larger audience it becomes a generative theme as it focuses on ethical questions about sentience like: At the end of animal testing, why are animals killed for research efficacy when human test subjects are given a reprieve?

Taiaiake Alfred: Indigenous Political and Social Values

Indigenous scholar Taiaiake Alfred (2009) contends that education is the best promise for social change as it points to the inconsistencies between the world as it is and the world as it should be. By moving reality closer to the ideal, Alfred (2009) asserts that education,”…would force the general population to engage with realities other than their own, increasing their capacity to empathize with others– to see other points of view and to understand other… and desires” (p. 168).

A reconciliation with traditional Indigenous political and social thought is breathing new life into social justice education as it recognizes the interconnectedness between humans and all living creatures, particularly when material capitalism continues to exploit and endanger animal and plant life on a global scale. In destroying the sacred relations that sustained communities in the

130

past, Alfred (2009) urges us to respect laws that maintain the sovereignty of animals since it ensures the protection of our most treasured possession – our own freedom. Thus, honouring and celebrating Indigenous cultures creates the opportunity to educate mainstream society about the need for empathetic alternatives to the current system of animal exploitation.

Notably, social justice education in the form of research informed theatre is relevant to the public since it makes empathetic connections with animal suffering. It is relevant to activists, as well, since it publicizes and celebrates successful ‘open rescues’ of animals from laboratories, which expands public knowledge and the impact the animal rights movement has on critical thought. But in exposing the structural conditions of oppression, Freire (1970) warns activist- educators not to “talk down” to the people they address,

It is not our role to speak to the people about our own view of the world, nor to attempt to impose that view on them, but rather to dialogue with the people and their view and ours. We must realize that their view of the world, manifested variously in their action, reflects their situation in the world (p. 96).

Consequently, activist education that is not critically aware of top-down messages of ‘’ runs the risk of further “banking” oppressive ideologies or preaching to an empty church.

Angela Singer: “A great infuriating joy”

Concerned with displacing ‘preachy’ artist certainties, Angela Singer (as cited in Baker, 2013) demands that art not only be evocative but ambiguous,

Work that seeks to persuade viewers to take a specific form of action can be quite awful. It can also be sanctimonious and literal. Trying too hard to show the issue you’re addressing can lead to dull passionless art of little interest to anyone except those concerned with the same issues….the best art is difficult to “read”…artwork that does not give up its meaning easily is a great joy. A great infuriating joy (p. 175).

I believe research informed theatre (RIT), as a dialogic cycle of action and reflection, counters the sententious activist rhetoric that can alienate audiences. As a form of transformative reflexivity, RIT acknowledges the playwrights’ “situatedness” and partiality to claims of knowledge (Goldstein, 2012; Richardson, 2000; Behar, 1993).

131

What became apparent from enlisting fellow graduate students and instructors in conversations about animal welfare were the negative influences that institutions have had on shaping opinions and behaviours, particularly the lack of empathy toward animals in university labs. I wanted to reverse this trend by making my peers aware of animal testing as a social justice issue within the framework of research informed theatre. To counteract the absence of humaneness in school curricula, I believe there is some urgency to institutionalize animal protection discourses like sentient empathy. As a starting point toward ‘spreading the gospel’ about sentient empathy, I hope to enlist on-campus focus groups (i.e. RIT participants, OISE-UT pre-service teachers, UT Medical Students) to read the plays and respond in kind. Transcribing accounts of ‘open rescue’ into ethnographic scripts that can be performed on stage educates others so that they may repeat these compassionate acts of animal liberation. It is my hope that the promotion of sentient empathy will further a higher order of ethics and morality among human and non-human animals. Indeed, research transcripts reveal how respondents redefined sentience by turning their gaze onto the ‘invisible’ animal. I believe there is an urgency to promote social justice as arts- based education since the moral morass to do-harm to animals becomes prolific as we get older.

As a reflective playwright researching and writing about ‘open rescue’, I plan on reading my play scripts to various groups in different venues in order to gauge its impact on- and relevance to affected communities. The value of RIT, as an accountable and ethically–driven research practice, is that it invites a moral dialogue that challenges speciesist notions of power while “reflexively clarifying” the playwrights own moral position concerning animal testing at the University of Toronto (Denzin, 2003, p. 123-124). As an “empowered learning” practice, RIT avoids the ‘talking head’ approach to activist education where the all-knowing playwright treats the audience as “empty vessels” to be filled (The Change Agency, 2015).

Taking my RIT scripts to a group of my peers challenges the disaffecting discourse that allows human beings to avoid questions about loss, suffering and moral responsibility toward animals. As a graduate student and Indo-Canadian educator, I feel a moral responsibility to help defenceless animals as I try to imagine what it must feel like to be caged and isolated inside a university laboratory. By bringing stories of ‘open rescue’ to the attention of various circles of

132

thought, transformative change can proceed quickly in order to reduce the violence inflicted upon animals inside universities.

Moreover, ‘open rescue’ scripts activate audiences by offering life affirming choices to reduce animal suffering as a way of building sentient empathy among species communities. When recollecting stories and experiences with animals, audience members can reinterpret their relationship with the natural world, specifically, those patterns of behaviour that deny or affirm sentience. Hence, research that provides insight into how animals are made invisible in universities invites deep reflection. Subsequently ‘open rescue’ narratives that liberate animals from universities provide a new experiential and theoretical perspective previously unconsidered.

As a Research-Informed Theatre playwright, I scripted characters who inform audience members about who gains sentience and who is denied a sentient voice, noting that, “animals have a voice…they scream out in pain” (MacKinnon, 2007, p. 316). RIT, as an empowered learning practice can encourage members of the public to reflect on the lives of other animals in laboratories in order to confront institutional paternalism, which suppresses empathy for sentient beings. Hence, activist education has the capacity to directly confront and challenge the current system of speciesist injustice, including how people are taught, as it re-imagines ourselves sharing rights with other sentient beings. For example, another form of sentient empathy has university administrators immediately co-ordinate and implement on-site adoption centres (possibly in partnership with animal welfare agencies), so that veterinary colleges and medical schools could mandate ‘open rescue’ as a do-no-harm research practice.

On a primary level, sentient empathy could nurture holistic education where young children invent new stories about a hopeful future that restores urban green spaces for threatened species like bees, butterflies and bats. Quite possibly, a revamped Roots of Empathy program would allow rescued animals into schools to be cared for and cuddled, nurturing sentient empathy among young students as a way of resisting speciesist indoctrination in their later years. As a strategic component of activist education, RIT scripts maintain a powerful narrative: the way we perceive animals can change…and here is how it was empathetically done.

Glossary

Abolition: Total elimination, versus the reform, of some form of oppression, enslavement, or abuse.

Ahimsa: As a multidimensional concept taken from Indian (, , and ), that espouses the principle of nonviolence toward all living things, specifically, to hurt another being is to hurt oneself.

Animal Ethics: Is a term used in academia to describe human-animal relationships and how animals ought to be treated.

Animality: having the behavioural, instinctual and physical characteristics of an animal

Animal Law: A field of legal education & scholarship that first emerged in the 1970’s.

Absent Referent: An invisible presence whose death is not talked about. Behind every experimental “model” is an absence: the death of the “lower order” animal whose place the term “model” takes up, thus removing the captive animal from our conscious minds.

Activism as Sentient Empathy: Acknowledging the emotive and relational constructs like direct identification with, understanding of, and affection to another animal's situation, feelings, and motives. When sentient beings empathize, we inform ourselves about the oppressive construct in order to reflect and change it.

Animal Rights: Legal protections for living things that give animals the same rights as people.

Animal Testing: Also known as animal experimentation, animal research or vivisection; is the use of animals in experiments for commercial and/or scientific aims .

Animal Welfare: The ethical responsibility of ensuring animal well-being, both physically and psychologically.

132 134

Bearing Witness: Exposing oneself to the painful reality of animal suffering, so that, by witnessing, one can re-evaluate their beliefs, values and behaviour against this newfound knowledge.

Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC): An autonomous and independent body, created in 1968 to oversee the ethical use of animals in science within Canada.

Ethno-drama: A dramatic script that includes significant selections of narratives collected from interviews, field notes, journal entries, diaries, media articles and court transcripts.

Ethnography: A branch of dealing with the scientific description of individual cultures. As a systematic study of people and cultures, ethnography is designed to explore cultural phenomena where the researcher observes society from the point of view of the subject of the study.

Holism: The sum of the parts is not greater than the sentient whole.

Interpellation: A procedure in some legislative bodies of asking a government official to explain an act or policy, sometimes leading, in parliamentary government, to a vote of confidence or a change of government.

Non-Human Animal: All other living beings that are not human beings.

Open Rescue: Giving aid, rescue and veterinary treatment to any confined animal known to be suffering in pain, and/or neglected or dying.

Performed Ethnography: Performance(s) that ethnographers stage from their interviews and from observation field notes.

Positivism: The theory that laws are to be understood as social rules, valid because they are enacted by authority or derived logically from existing decisions, and that ideal or moral considerations (i.e., that a rule is unjust) should not limit the scope or operation of the law.

Research-Informed Theatre: An dramatic investigation of the human condition or a moment of human history that can be scripted from research notes and performed for an audience.

135

Sentience: The capacity of living beings to experience sense, cognition and feelings, particularly pain.

Sentient Empathy: It is the direct identification with, understanding of, affection to, and vicarious experience of another animal's situation, feelings, and motives. Identifying oneself completely with an animal, even to the point of responding physically to animal suffering, is one form of sentient empathy.

Signification: Establishing meaning to a word.

Social Justice Education: A pedagogical approach that challenges societal inequalities which deny oppressed groups equitable treatment, rights protections, and a fair allocation of community resources. Using cultural evaluation and a critical lens to peel back forms of domination, social justice education recognizes and promotes an understanding of “the Other,” specifically their struggle for self-determination and identity.

Speciesism: As an oppressive “ism”, the term refers to the discrimination and exclusion of any and all nonhuman animals from rights and protections granted to the human species.

Transgenic: Relating to, or denoting an organism that contains genetic material into which DNA from an unrelated organism has been artificially introduced.

Triangulation: Is a method used by qualitative researchers to check and establish validity in their studies by analysing a research question from multiple perspectives in order to arrive at consistency across data sources or approaches.

Vegan: Way of living that seek to exclude, as far as is possible and practical, all forms of animal exploitation including food, clothing or any other purpose.

Verisimilitude: The appearance or semblance of truth; likelihood; probability.

Vivisection: From the Latin words vivus (“alive”) and sectio (“cutting”) that means the act of operating on living animals, especially within scientific research.

References

Aaltola, E. (2015). The Rise of Sentimentalism and Animal Philosophy. In, Animal, Ethics and

Philosophy-Questioning the Orthodox, Elisa Aaltola and John Hadley (eds.) London, UK:

Rowman & Littlefield, 201-215.

Acker, J., Barry, K., & Esseveld, J. (1983). Objectivity and truth: Problems in doing feminist research.

Women’s Studies International Forum, 6(4): 431.

Adams, C. J. and Donovan, J. (2007). The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics. New York, NY:

Continuum, 220.

Adams, C. (2006). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory. (10th Anniversary

Ed.) New York: Continuum.

Adams, C. J. (1996). “Caring about Suffering: A Feminist Exploration.” In Josephine Donovan and

Carol J Adams (eds.), The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics. (170-194). New York, NY:

Continuum,

Alexander, B.K. (2005). Performance ethnography. The re-enacting and inciting of culture. In N. K.

Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Inquiry, 3rd edition, (pp. 411-441).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Alternative Radio (2014). Love & Justice: Interview with Cornel West Program #WESC006. Radio

interview recorded in Seattle, WA. and posted on-line 09th October, 2014. Accessed on 30th

July, 2015 from CIUT 89.5 FM and on 28th August, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.alternativeradio.org/products/wesc006#

Alternative Radio (2015). The Limits of Academic Freedom. Program #SAL002. Radio interview

recorded in Baltimore, MD. and posted on-line 16th October, 2015. Accessed on 30th December,

135 137

2015 from CIUT 89.5 FM and posted on the World Wide Web at:

http://www.alternativeradio.org/collections/spk_steven-salaita/products/sals002

Alfred, T. (2009) Peace, Power and Righteousness – An Indigenous Manifesto. Don Mills, ON: Oxford

University Press.

The American Heritage Science Dictionary (2002). Symmetry in Science. Boston, Mass: Houghton

Mifflin.

Animal Liberation Front. (2006) Animal Defense League Activist Sentenced to 90 Days Imprisonment -

Pamelyn Ferdin Immediately Taken Into Custody. On-line ALF press release posted 22nd June,

2006 and retrieved on 28th December, 2014 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/News/2006_06/FerdinJailed.htm

–––, (2006). AR News. Sortable archive: Video About HLS.. On-line Animal Liberation Front video

posted 22nd June, 2006. Retrieved on 28th December, 2014 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/News/2006_06/June2006.htm

Animal Liberation Front.com (2015). Animal Protection -Worldwide Actions-Canada: ALF Destroys

Two Trucks In Ontario, Canada. On-line communique posted 8th June, 2015 and accessed on 15th

July, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Actions-

Canada/ALFDestroysOntarioTrucks.htm

Animal Rights Extremism Information (2014). Animal Liberation Front strike in Toronto. On-line print

article posted 14 July, 2014 and accessed on 7 December, 2014 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.animalrightsextremism.info/news/2014/7/animal-liberation-front-strike-in-toronto

138

Animal Voices. (2014). Radio interview with Hunt Saboteurs’ spokesperson, Eric. Interview broadcast

on 24th July, 2014 and accessed on 12th August, 2014. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto

Community Radio – CIUT FM.

Animal Voices. (2015). Radio interview with Queen’s Animal Defense spokesperson, Zipporah

Weisberg. Interview broadcast on 7th July, 2015 and accessed on 10th July, 2015. Toronto, ON:

University of Toronto Community Radio – CIUT FM.

ANZCCART. (2003). Media Release: Scientists to Push for More Public Information on Animal

Research. On-line press release posted on 3rd September, 2003 and accessed on 10th July, 2015

from the World Wide Web at: http://www.rsnz.org/advisory/anzccart/releaseSept03.php

Arluke, A., & Hafferty, F. (1996). From apprehension to fascination with “dog lab”: the use of

absolutions by medical students. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 25(2), 201-225.

Artezia.net (2012) Vivisection: When Man Turns Monster La Vivisection - Dissection Animale. On-line

print article accessed on 18 August, 2013 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.artezia.net/animaux/vivisection/vivisection-gb.htm

Ascione, F.R. (1992) Enhancing children’s attitudes about the humane treatment of animals:

Generalization to human-directed empathy. Anthrozoos 5(3):176-191.

Ascione, F.R. and Weber, C.V. (1996) Children’s attitudes about the humane treatment of animals and

empathy: One year follow-up of a school-based intervention. Anthrozoos 9: 188-195.

Avery, D. (2008). Beyond Power: Simone Weil and the Notion of Authority. Lanham, MD: Lexington

Books.

Balls, M. (2002). “The Use of Scientifically-Validated Tests for Embryotoxicity, In, European

Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 3 June 2002.

139

Balls, M (2000). “Statement on the Application of the Epiderm™ Human Skin Model For Skin

Corrosivity Testing,” European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 21 March

2000.

Baker, S. (2013). Artist/Animal. Minneapolis, MINN: University of Press.

Barker, S.B., and Best, A.M., Fredrickson, M. and Hunter, G. (2000). Constraints in assessing the

impact of animals in education. Anthrozoos 13(2):74-79.

Barsh, R.L., and Henderson, J.Y. (1980) The Road: Indian Tribes and Political Liberty. Berkeley, CA:

University of Press.

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for ‘‘mini-

c’’ creativity. In Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 73–79.

Behar, R. (1996). The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology That Breaks Your Heart. Boston, MASS:

Beacon Press.

Behar, R. (1995). Introduction: Out of Exile. In R. Behar and D.Gordon (Eds.) Women Writing Culture,

(p. 1-29). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Behar, R. (1993). Translated Woman: Crossing the Border with Esperanza's Story. Boston, MASS:

Beacon Press.

Bekoff, M. (1998). “Deep , Animal Rights, and the Great /Animal Project: Resisting

Speciesism and Expanding the Community of Equals.” Journal of Agricultural and

Environmental Ethics 10, 269-96.

Bekoff, M. (2008). The Emotional Lives of Animal- A Leading Scientist Explores Animal joy, Sorrow,

and Empathy and Why They Matter. Novato, CA: New World Library.

Bekoff, M. (2010). The Animal Manifesto: 6 Reasons for Expanding our Compassion Footprint. Novato,

CA: New World Library.

140

Bekoff, M., and J. Pierce (2009). Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals. Chicago, ILL: University of

Chicago Press.

Bekoff, M. (2006). Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals. In Waldau, P., & Patton, K. (Eds.), A

Communion of Subjects. Chicago, ILL: University of Chicago Press.

Bekoff, M. (2010). The Animal Manifesto: 6 Reasons for Expanding our Compassion Footprint. Novato,

CA: New World Library.

Bekoff, M. (2006). Wild Justice, Social Cognition, Fairness, and Morality – A Deep Appreciation for

the Subjective Lives of Animals. In Waldau, P., and Patton, K. (Eds.), A Communion of Subjects

(p. 461-477). New York, NY: Press.

Berger, J. (2009). Great Ideas: Why Look at Animals. London, UK: Penguin Group, 13.

Bernstein, E. (1987). Autobiography: Empathy Toward Animals and Other Sentient Beings-A Very

Personal Account. On-line print article published in on 1st June, 1987 and

accessed on 4th July, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1651&context=bts

Berry, W. (1990). What are people for? Essays. Berkeley, CA: Counter Point: 146,148.

Best, S. (2009). The rise of critical animal studies: Putting theory into action and animal liberation into

higher education. Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 32 (4), 401-416. Retrieved on 5th August,

2013 from: http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/volume-vii-issue-i-2009/

Best, S., Anthony J. Nocella, II, Richard Kahn, Carol Gigliotti, & Lisa Kemmerer (2007). Introducing

Critical Animal Studies: Ten Principles. As posted on the Institute for Critical Animal Studies

website and retrieved from the World Wide Web on 19th April, 2014 at:

http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Introducing-Critical-Animal-

Studies-2007.pdf

141

Bichat, X. (1800). Physiological Researches on Life and Death, in Daniel N. Robinson (ed.), Significant

Contributions to the 1750-1920. Washington, DC: University Publications

of America, 1978: 9-10.

Birchard, K. (2013). Air Canada bans research primates from its flights. Online print article posted to

University Affairs (UA) - News on 13th January, 2013 and accessed on 22nd August, 2013 from

the World Wide Web at: http://www.universityaffairs.ca/air-canada-bans-research-primates-

from-its-flights.aspx

Bird, S. (2013). “Walking Dead” Actor Wants to End Animal Testing for Cosmetics. Online article

posted 12th August, 2013 on the Care2 website and accessed on 16th August, 2013 from the

World Wide Web at: http://www.care2.com/causes/walking-dead-actor-wants-to-end-animal-

testing-for-cosmetics.html

Bird, S. (2014) Landmark Ruling: An Orangutan Is a “Non-Human Person” With Rights, Says

Argentina. Internet news article posted 22nd December, 2104 and retrieved on 24th December,

2014 from the World Wide Web from: http://www.care2.com/causes/landmark-ruling-an-

orangutan-is-a-non-human-person-with-rights-says-argentina.html#ixzz3Mn9evRJI

Boal, A. (1993). Theatre of the Oppressed. New York NY: Theatre Communications Group.

Bonanno, S.G. (2013). The Power and Strength of Bearing Witness. On-line print article posted in

Psychology Today on 3rd December, 2013 and accessed from the World Wide Web on 30th

June, 2015 from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/meaningful-you/201312/the-power-

and-strength-bearing-witness

–––, The Power and Strength of Bearing Witness: A witness assures us that our stories are heard,

contained, and transcend time. Psychology Today blog post published online on 3 December,

2013 and retrieved from the World Wide Web on 24 March, 2015 at:

142

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/meaningful-you/201312/the-power-and-strength-

bearing-witness

Brecht, B. (1949). The Alienation Effect, in Actors on Acting. Toby Cole and Helen Krich Chinoy (eds.).

New York, NY, Crown Publishers.

Britzman, D. (2002). “The Question of Belief”: Writing Poststructural Ethnography. In E. A. St. Pierre

& W. S. Pillow (Eds.), Working the Ruins: Feminist Poststructural Theory and Methods in

Education (p. 27-40). New York: Routledge.

Brom, F.W. (2002)” Science and society: different bioethical approaches towards animal

experimentation.” In ALTEX: Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, 19(2), 78-82.

Brown, D. (2008). USDA orders largest meat recall in U.S. history. On-line print article from the

Washington Post posted on 18th February, 2008 and retrieved from the World Wide Web on 5th

August, 2013, at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2008/02/17/AR2008021701530.htm

Brown, P. (Ed.) (2010). Verbatim: Staging Memory and Community. Strawberry Hills, NWS: Currency

Press.

Butler, J. (1993). Arguing with the Real. In Bodies That Matter. New York: Routledge.

–––. (1993). On the discursive limits of “sex”. In Bodies That Matter: New York: Routledge.

–––. (1997) Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge, 1997.

–––. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.

Buy, M. (1997) Transgenic Animals, Animal Welfare and Ethics. On-line article from the Canadian

Council on Animal Care Resource Supplement. Posted in Summer 1997 and received from the

World Wide Web on 1st September, 2014 at: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~browder/guidelines.html

143

Canadian Council on Animal Care (2015a). CCAC Assessment & Certification: List of Certificate

Holders. Posted on CCAC website on January 2015 and retrieved from the World Wide Web on

7th April, 2015 at: http://www.ccac.ca/en_/assessment/certification/holders_list

–––. (2015b). About CCCAC: Number of Animals Used and Alternatives to Animal Use in Science:

How many animals are used in science in Canada? Posted on CCAC website on January 2015

and retrieved from the World Wide Web on 7th April, 2015 at:

http://www.ccac.ca/en_/about/f.a.q

–––. (2015) . CCAC Standards and Policies: Guidelines. Posted on CCAC website on January 2015 and

retrieved from the World Wide Web on 13th April, 2015 at:

http://www.ccac.ca/en_/standards/guidelines

–––. (2013). Three Rs Microsite: Your link to information on replacement, reduction and refinement

alternatives for animal use in science. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on 14th August,

2013 from: http://3rs.ccac.ca/en/.

–––. (2005). In Science: Three Rs Alternatives. Copyright posting until 2014 and retrieved from the

World Wide Web on 16th April, 2014 from: http://www.ccac.ca/en_/threer

The Canadian Press. (2015). Quebec bill calls animals 'sentient beings' and includes jail time for

cruelty. CBC News Print article posted 5 June, 2015 and retrieved on 25 August, 2015 from the

World Wide Web at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-bill-calls-animals-

sentient-beings-and-includes-jail-time-for-cruelty-1.3102399

Canadian Social Research. (2012). Canadian Social Research Links: The Drummond Commission /

Report: Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Services. On-line document posted on

23rd February, 2012 and accessed 29th October 2015 from the World Wide web at:

http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/drummond_report_2012.htm

144

Carmody Hagood, M. (2004). A rhizomatic cartography of adolescents, popular culture, and

constructions of self. In M. Leander and M. Sheehy (Eds). Spatializing literacy research and

practice (p. 143). New York: Peter Lang,

Catholic Principals’ Council of Ontario. (2012). Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public

Service-Drummond Report: Executive Summary. Posted in Spring 2012 and retrieved from the

Catholic Principals Council of Ontario website on 14th of April, 2014 at:

https://www.cpco.on.ca/files/7513/8142/7435/Full_Report.pdf and

https://www.cpco.on.ca/files/8913/8142/7301/Executive_Summary.pdf

Cavalieri, P. (2001) The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Change Agency. (2015). Campaigners Toolkit- Activist Education. On-line article posted by the change

agency.org and retrieved on 23 August, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.thechangeagency.org/campaigners-toolkit/activist-education/

Chatelaine Pawprints (2015). Adoption Made Easier. Toronto, ON: Rogers Publishing, 7.

Chenail, R.J. (2008). “But is it research?”: A Review of Patricia Leavy’s Method Meets Art: Arts-Based

Research Practice. The Weekly Qualitative Report Volume 1(2), 1-12. Online print article posted

on 13th October, 2008 and accessed on 22nd July, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/WQR/leavy.pdf

Chomsky, N., & E.S. Herman. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass

Media. New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 23.

Clandinin, D.J., & Connelly, F.M. (2000). Narrative Inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative

research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

145

Clark, J.L. (2014). Labourers or lab tools? Rethinking the role of lab animals in clinical trials. In The

Rise of Critical Animal Studies - From the margins to the centre by Nik Taylor and Richard

Twine (eds.). London, UK: Routledge.

Clifford, J. (1983). On ethnographic authority. Representations 1, 118-146.

Cochrane, A. (20 From Human Rights to Sentient Rights. On-line research essay posted 11th March,

2014 and retrieved from the World Wide Web on 26th December, 2014 at:

http://www.academia.edu/3692542/From_Human_Rights_to_Sentient_Rights

Cohn, M. (2010). "Alternatives to Animal Testing Gaining Ground - Researchers, regulators develop

new systems for experiments." Baltimore Sun on-line print article, posted 26th August, 2010 and

accessed from the World Wide Web on 12th January, 2015 from:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-08-26/health/bs-hs-animal-testing-20100826_1_animal-

testing-animal-welfare-act-researchers

Cohn, M.M., & R.B. Kottkamp (1993) Teachers: The Missing Voice in Education. New York, NY:

SUNY Press.

Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Services (2012). Report - "The Drummond

Commission". In Canadian Social Research, posted 23rd February, 2012 and accessed from the

World Wide Web on 14th April, 2014 from:

http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/drummond_report_2012.htm

Compassion Over Killing. (2003). Latest News - Interview with Open Rescue pioneer Patty Mark. On-

line article posted by OpenRescue.org on 27 March, 2003 in Washington DC and retrieved from

the World Wide Web on 8 July 2015 from: http://www.openrescue.org/news/20030327.html

Cooper, B. (2002). Empathy, Interaction and Caring: Teachers’ Roles in a Constrained Environment.

Posted by NAPCE on September 2004 and published by Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

146

Retrieved from the World Wide Web at:

http://oppimateriaalit.jamk.fi/edusociety/files/2010/06/EmpathyInteractionandCaringartikkeli.pdf

Council of Canadians. (2013) Eli Lilly adds $400 million to NAFTA lawsuit against Canada's patent

norms. On-line article posted on 17th July, 2013 and retrieved on 22nd August, 2013 from the

World Wide Web at: http://www.canadians.org/content/eli-lilly-adds-400-million-nafta-lawsuit-

against-canadas-patent-norms

Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CAL: Sage Publications, Inc.

Crossman, A. (2015) Sociology- The Social Theory of Decentering. Article posted in about.com and

retrieved on 27th August, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://sociology.about.com/od/D_Index/g/Decentered-self.htm

Davis, L. J. (1995). Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deafness, and the body. London; New York: Verso.

From http://www.cpco.on.ca/ResourceLibrary/Drummond/ExecutiveSummary.pdf

Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1984). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, London: Athlone

Press.

Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. Capitalism and schizophrenia. London:

Continuum.

Denzin, N. (2003). Performance Ethnography: Critical Pedagogy and the Politics of Culture. Sage:

Thousand Oaks, CA.

Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

147

Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone Books.

Dictionary.com (2014) Dictionary: discipline. On-line dictionary posted by Random House Inc.

Retrieved from the World Wide Web on 18th April, 2014 at:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discipline?s=t

Diddley, J. (2010). Interview with Imprisoned Anarchist and Anti-Fascist Activist Tim Fasnacht. In

David Van Deusen and Xavier Massot (eds.) The Black Bloc Paper An Anthology of Primary

Texts From The North American Anarchist Black Bloc 1988-2005. p. 179-182. Shawnee

Mission, KS: Breaking Glass Press. Originally posted on January 2002 and retrieved 5th

December, 2014 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.infoshop.org/amp/bgp/BlackBlockPapers2.pdf

Dillabough, J.A. (2008). Exploring Historicity and Temporality in Social Science Methodology: A Case

for Analytical and Methodological Justice. In Gallagher, K. (Ed.), The Methodological Dilemma:

Creative, Critical, and Collaborative Approaches to Qualitative Research (p.185-218). New

York: Routledge.

Dolby, N. (2012) Rethinking Multicultural Education for the Next Generation: The New Empathy and

Social Justice. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Donovan, J. (2013). The Voice of Animals: A Response to Recent French Care Theory in Animal

Ethics. In Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume 11, Issue 1, 2013 (ISSN 1948-352X).

Accessed on 18th August, 2013 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/JCAS-Vol-11-Issue-1-

2013.pdf

Egan, K. (1992). Imagination in teaching and learning: The middle school years. Chicago, ILL:

University of Chicago Press.

148

Eisnitz, G. A. (2007). Slaughterhouse: The shocking story of greed, neglect, and inhumane treatment in

the U.S. meat industry. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.

Elias, D. (1997). It's time to change our minds: An introduction to transformative learning. Re- Vision,

20 (1),3.

Ellen, G. (1913). The Bisbee Deportation of 1917 – Sabotage: Forward. On-line article posted by the

University of Arizona Web Exhibit of an Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) pamphlet

dated 5th December, 2015 and retrieved on 15 July, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/bisbee/docs/133.html

Ellis, C. (2000) Creating criteria: An ethnographic short story. Qualitative Inquiry 6, 273-277.

Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., & Steinmetz, A.C. (1991). Doing qualitative research:

Circles within circles. New York, NY: Falmer Press.

Esslin, M. (1961). Theatre of the Absurd. New York, NY: Random House.

Fay, B. (1987). Critical social science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). News - Testimony: Animal Rights Extremism and

Ecoterrorism. On-line submission by John E. Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director, Federal Bureau

of Investigation before the Senate Judiciary Committee (Washington DC) posted on 18th May,

2004 and accessed on 9 July, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/animal-rights-extremism-and-ecoterrorism

Festing, M.F.W. (2004) Is the use of animals in biomedical research still necessary in 2002?

Unfortunately, "Yes". In ATLA: Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 32(Suppl. 1B), 733-739.

Fine, M. (1988/2004). Sexuality, Schooling, and Adolescent Females: The Missing Discourse of Desire.

In Gaztambide-Fernández, R., Harding, H. & Sorde-Marti. T. (Eds.) Cultural Studies and

149

Education: Perspectives on Methodology, Theory, and Practice, (p. 125-148). Cambridge, MA:

Harvard Educational Review.

Finley, S. (2005). Arts-based inquiry: Performing revolutionary pedagogy. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.

Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Inquiry, 3rd edition, (p. 681-694). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Fogelman, E. (1994). Conscience and Courage: Rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust. New York, NY:

Anchor Books.

Fortowsky, A. (2013) Animal Rights and The Novel. On-line presentation posted in May 2013 and

accessed on 9th August, 2015 from the World Wide Web at: http://animalrightsacademy.org/wp-

content/uploads/2014/03/AR_And_The_Novel.pdf

Foucault, M. (1989). The Birth of the Clinic, trans. A.M. Sheridan. London and New York: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1990). The History of Sexuality, volume I: An introduction (R. Hurley Trans.). New

York: Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (2003). In Marchetti, V., Salomoni A., Ewald F., Fontana A. and Davidson A. I. (Eds.),

Abnormal: Lectures at the College de France, 1974-1975 (G. Burchell Trans.). New York:

Picador.

Free From Harm. (2012). Bearing Witness: The First Stage in Changing the Paradigm for Animals. On-

line posting from Free From Harm staff writers on 26th January, 2012 and accessed on 26th

December, 2014 from the World Wide Web at: http://freefromharm.org/veganism/bearing-

witness-the-first-stage-in-changing-the-paradigm-for-animals/#sthash.eDpsbXSr.dpuf

Freire, Paulo. (2007) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing

Group.

Furter, P. (1966). Educação e Vida. Rio de Janeiro, 26-27.

150

Garner, T. (2014). Chest Surgeries of a Different ‘Nature’. In Annual Review of Critical Psychology 11.

Vancouver, BC: Simon Fraser University.

Garry, T. J. (2012). Nonhuman Animals: Possessors of Prima Facie Rights, 6.

Gilligan, C. (2010), “Une voix différente: un regard prospectif à partir du passé”, in V. Nurock (Ed.).

Carol Gilligan et l‘éthique du “care”, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.

Gilligan, C. (2008). "Moral Orientation and Moral Development." In Alison Bailey and Chris J. Cuomo.

The Reader (469, 471). Boston: McGraw-Hill,

Giménez, E. (2015). CNN Espanol News-World: Argentine orangutan granted unprecedented legal

rights. On-line print article posted on 4th January 4, 2015 and accessed on 11th January, 2015

from the World Wide Web at: http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/23/world/americas/feat-orangutan-

rights-ruling/

Glow, H. (2007). Power Play: Australian Theatre and the Public Agenda. Sydney, AUST: Currency

Press.

Goodley, D. (2007). Towards socially just pedagogies: Deleuzoguattarian critical disability studies.

International Journal of Inclusive Education Vol. 11, No. 3, May 2007, 317–334.

Goodman, J.R, & Borch, C.A. (2014, February). Trends in Americans’ attitudes toward animal testing:

2001-2013. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the

Advancement of Science, Chicago, Ill.

Goldstein, T. (2012). Staging Harriet’s House: Writing and Producing Research-Informed Theatre.

New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Goldstein, T. (2012). Performed Ethnography and Research-Informed Theatre: A Reflective Assessment.

A Youth Theatre Journal article posted on 07 May 2012 by Taylor and Francis Online and

151

retrieved 21st July, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08929092.2012.678238#preview

Government of Ontario (2007, June) Shaping Our Schools, Shaping Our Future: Environmental

Education in Ontario Schools, p. 6 & 10. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved

on 5th August, 2013 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/curriculumcouncil/shapingschools.pdf

Gray, E.G. Green Paradise Lost. Wellesley, MASS: Roundtable.

Gregoriou, Z. (2004). Commencing the Rhizome: Towards a minor philosophy of education.

Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36 (3), 234.

Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on Education, the arts, and social change. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Greene, M. (2001). Variations on a blue guitar: The Lincoln Center Institute lectures on aesthetic

education. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Gruen , L. (1996) “Empathy and Vegetarian Commitments.” In Josephine Donovan and Carol J Adams

(eds.), The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics. New York, NY: Continuum.

Gruen, L. & Cuomo, C. (1996). “Caring about Suffering: A Feminist Exploration.” In Josephine

Donovan and Carol J Adams (eds.), The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics. New York,

NY: Continuum.

Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1988) Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies? In D.M.

Fetterman (Ed.) Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education (p. 89-115). New York:

Praeger.

Gunkle, G. (1963). “Empathy: Implications for Theatre Research.” On-line article posted in Educational

Theatre Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1 on 22nd April, 2014 and retrieved 16th July, 2015 from the

152

World Wide Web at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/219580169/Empathy-Implications-for-Theatre-

Research#scribd

Hall, J. 92013). Hundreds of students to benefit from $6.6 million in training funds -U of T wins four

CREATE awards, only institution to receive more than one. Posted on U of T News on 12th

August, 2013 and retrieved on 23rd August, 2013 from the World Wide Web at:

http://news.utoronto.ca/hundreds-students-benefit-66-million-

trainingfunds?utm_campaign=UofTNews&utm_source=UofTHome&utm_medium=WebsiteBan

ner&utm_content=NSERCprogram

Hamilton, T. (2012 Fall). From the article “Do No Harm” in Corporate Knights Vol. 11 (3). Toronto,

ON: Corporate Knights Inc. 58.

Hanley, M.S. (2013). Culturally Relevant Arts Education For Social Justice - A Way Out of No Way.

Preface citation from M.S.Hanley, G. W. Noblit, G. L. Sheppard and T.Barone (eds.). New

York, NY: Routledge, xii-xiii, 2.

Haraway, D. J. (1997). Modest_Witness@ Second Millennium. Female Man_Meets_Oncomouse.

London and New York: Routledge, 60-63, 217.

Haraway, D. (2008). When Species Meet, Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.

Harlop, Y. (1996) Toward training: The meaning and practices of social change work in the arts.

Report commissioned by the International Centre of Art and Social Change and retrieved on 10th

August, 2015 from the World Wide Web at: http://www.icasc.ca/research

Harlop, Y & Aristizabal, H. (2013). Using Theatre to Promote Social Justice. In Culturally Relevant Arts

Education For Social Justice - A Way Out of No Way. M.S.Hanley, G. W. Noblit, G. L.

Sheppard and T.Barone (eds.). New York, NY: Routledge, 30-32.

153

Harvard Magazine (2013). Breaking News: Harvard Medical School to Close -Research Center.

On-line print article published 23rd April, 2013 and accessed on 17th August, 2013 from the

World Wide Web at: http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/04/harvard-medical-to-close-primate-

research-center

Hauch, Valerie (2012, March 19) U of T animal experimentation a waste of time, says Dr. Ray Greek of

California. Toronto, ON: Torstar Corporation. Retrieved June 23, 2012 from the World Wide

Web: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1148620--u-of-t-animal-experimentation-a-waste-of-

time-says-dr-ray-greek-of-california

Hawthorne, M. (2005).” Inside an Open Rescue: Putting a Human Face on Animal Liberation.” On-line

print article posted on on June/July 2005 and retrieved on 19th March, 2015 from the

World Wide Web at: http://www.satyamag.com/jun05/hawthorne.html

Hedges, C. (2013) Cornel West and Chris Hedges discuss Bradley Manning verdict [You Tube video].

Published 9th, August, 2013 and retrieved from the World Wide Web on 10th August, 2013 at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxljfU_w_RI

Himalayan Academy. (2008). Nature's Animal Kingdom - Dominion or Coexistence? The Hindu

Doctrine of Ahimsa And the Western Ethic of Speciesism. Posted on Hindu Today Web Edition

on November 1988 and retrieved on12 January, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=568

Hitchens, C. (2014). Chris Hedges: Strategies for Revolution. [You Tube video]. Leigha Cohen

Production, Published 27th, August, 2014 and retrieved from the World Wide Web on 4th

December, 2014 at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxljfU_w_RIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbEbPa6Lm

OU

154

Hoffman, M., 1981. “Is Altruism Part of Human Nature?” Journal of Personality and

40, 121–137.

Hoffman, M. 2000. Empathy and Moral Development. Cambridge, MASS: Cambridge University Press.

Holistic Education Network. (2011). Education with an Holistic Perspective. Holistic Education

Network article posted on 20th January, 2011 and retrieved on 26th, August, 2015 from the

World Wide Web at: http://www.hent.org/

The Institute for Critical Animal Studies. (2015). About-Mission. From ICAS web-page posted in 2015

and accessed on 26th August, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Introducing-Critical-Animal-

Studies-2007.pdf

Jasper, J.M. and Nelkin, D. (1992). The Animal rights Crusade: The Growth of Moral Protest. New

York, NY: Free Press.

Johnson, L., Thomas, S. (2013).Issue Introduction. In Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 11(1), 5

(ISSN 1948-352X). Accessed on 18th August, 2013 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/JCAS-Vol-11-Issue-1-

2013.pdf

–––. Interview with Carol J. Adams In Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 11(1), 108- 132. Accessed

on 20th August, 2013 from the World Wide Web at: http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/07/JCAS-Vol-11-Issue-1-2013.pdf

Johnson, R. (2012). Anna Deavere Smith revisits 'Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992.' On-line print article

posted by the Los Angeles Times on 25th April, 2012 and accessed on 14th August, 2015 from

the World Wide Web at: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/25/entertainment/la-et-cm-anna-

deavere-smith-20120425

155

Joy, M. (2012). Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism. San

Francisco, CA: Canari Press.

Kedgley, S. (2002) "Lifting the Veil on Animal Experimentation Secrecy", Seminar of the Animal

Rights Legal Advocacy Network. On-line press release posted 2nd October, 2001 and accessed

from the World Wide Web on 26 May 2005 at:

http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech6317.html

Kelch, T.G. (2007). “Toward a Non-Property Status for Animals.” (Chap. 9) In J. Donovan & C.J.

Adams (eds.) The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics. New York, NY: Columbia

University Press.

Kemmis, S., & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory action research and the study of practice. In B.

Atweh, S. Kemmis, & P.Weeks (Eds.) Action research in practice: Partnerships for social

justice in education (p. 21-36). New York, NY: Routledge.

Khandker, W. (2014). Philosophy, Animality and the Life Sciences. Edinburgh, SCOT: Edinburgh

University Press Ltd.

Kheel, M. (1985). The Liberation of Nature – A Circular Affair. In , 7(2), 135-149.

Kheel, M. (2004) and : Toppling Patriarchy with a Fork. In Steve F.

Sapontzis (Ed.), Food for Thought: The Debate Over Eating Meat, (p. 327–341). Amherst, NY:

Prometheus Books.

Kheel, M. (2007). “The Liberation of Nature.” In Josephine Donovan and Carol J Adams (eds.). Beyond

Animal Rights: A Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics. New York, NY: Columbia

University Press.

156

Kinchella, J., & McLaren, P. (1998). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. Denzin &

Y. Lincoln (Eds.) The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (p. 433-488).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,

Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Critical constructivism. New York: Peter Lang.

Kincheloe, J. L., Horn, R. A., eds. (2007). The Praeger Handbook of Education and Psychology.

Westport, CONN: Praeger.

King, L., Ross, C., Stephens, M., and Rowan, A. (2004). “Biology Teachers’ Attitudes to Dissection and

Alternatives”, ALTA, 32, Supplement 1, 475-484.

Klein, N. (2013) Why Unions Need to Join the Climate Fight. A speech delivered on September 1, 2013

at the founding convention of UNIFOR. Posted on 29 June, 2014 and accessed on 11th

December, 2014 from the World Wide Web at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KLd6Q5WQ4g

Knight, A. (2011). The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Knight, A. (2011b). Weighing the Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments. In Altex Proceedings,

1/12. Retrieved on 20th August, 2013 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.altex.ch/resources/289294_Knight131.pdf

Korten, D. (2006). The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community. In Yes Magazine- Positive

Futures Network, Bainbridge Island, WA. On-line print article published 8th May, 2006 and

retrieved on 17th August, 2013 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/5000-years-of-empire/the-great-turning-from-empire-to-

earth-community-1

157

Krajnc, A. (2012). Bearing Witness - A guest blog by Anita Krajnc, Co-Founder of Toronto Pig Save.

Blog posting from Jo Anne McArthur’s We Animals, posted 1st May, 2012 and retrieved on 24th

December, 2014 from the World Wide Web at: http://weanimals.org/blog.php?entry=168

Krajnc, A. (2013). Toronto Pig Save: Bearing witness at in our city. On-line print article

published in The Ghosts In Our Machine website in 1st April, 2013 and accessed on 30th June,

2015 at: http://www.theghostsinourmachine.com/toronto-pig-save-bearing-witness-at-

slaughterhouses-in-our-city/

Kumashiro, K.K. (Spring 2000) Toward a Theory of Anti-Oppressive Education. Review of Educational

Research,70 (1), 25-48.

Kumashiro, K.K. (April 2001) “Posts” Perspectives on Anti-Oppression Education in Social Studies,

English, Mathematics, and Science Classrooms. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 3-12.

Laidlaw, R. (2013). Saving Lives & Changing Hearts-Animal Sanctuaries and Rescue Centres.

Markham, CAN: Fitzhenry and Whiteside.

Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. In The Sociological Quarterly,

34(4). 674, 686.

Lawyers for Animal Welfare. (2013). Did You Know…You Don’t have To Experiment On Animals.

[Brochure] Retrieved on 14 August, 2013 from: [email protected]

Leavy, P. (2008). Method Meets Art: Arts-Based Research Practice. New York, NY: Guilford

Publications.

Lipps, T. (1903b). Aesthetik, Vol. 1. Hamburg: Voss Verlag.

Lim, K. O.et al (2000).“ Structural Brain Assessment,” The American College of

Neuropsychopharmacology.

158

Linzey, A. (2009). Why Animal Suffering Matters – Philosophy, Theology, and Practical Ethics. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.

Litchbau, D. (2009). “Theatre of Possibility: Performative Inquiry as Heuristic, Holistic, and Integrative

Learning.” In LEARNing Landscapes, 2 (2). Online academic article posted in Spring, 2009 and

accessed on 7th September, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.learninglandscapes.ca/images/documents/ll-no4/dlichtblau.pdf

Lock, M. (2001). The Alienation of Body Tissue and the Biopolitics of Immortalized Cell Lines, Body

& Society, 7(63), 63-83.

Lohr, S. (1988). World - Swedish Farm Animals Get a Bill of Rights. Print article posted on 25 October,

1988 in the New York Times and accessed on 28th August, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/25/world/swedish-farm-animals-get-a-bill-of-rights.html

MacKinnon, C. A. (2007), “Of Mice and Men: A Fragment on Animal Rights”, in Donovan, J. and

Adams, C. J. (Eds.), The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics (p. 316-332). New York, NY:

Columbia University Press,

MacKinnon, C. A. (1987). Feminism Unmodified. Cambridge , MASS: Harvard University Press,

Magel, C. (1990). “Animal Liberators Are Not Anti-Science.” Between the Species 6, 204-213.

Marcus, E. (Ed.) (2005). Meat Market: Animals, Ethics & Money. Minneapolis, MINN: Brio Books.

Mark, P. (2004). “Opening Doors and Eyes to Animal Suffering - The Abolitionist Interview with Patty

Mark.” On-line print article posted in SATYA on March 2005 and retrieved on 19th March,

2015 from the World Wide Web at: http://www.satyamag.com/mar04/mark.html

Marshall, L. (2013) The Ghosts in Our Machine (Canadian Documentary). Accessed from the World

Wide Web on 4th August, 2013 Toronto, ON: Ghost Media Production Inc.

http://www.theghostsinourmachine.com/

159

Marx, K. (1990). Capital: Volume I, New York: Penguin.

Massumi, B. (2007). The Future birth of the affective fact: The political ontology of threat. In A. Byrant

and G. Pollack (Ed.), Digital and Other Virtualities: Renegotiating the Image. New York, NY:

I.B. Tauris.

Matheny, G. (2003). Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous

Proposal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16(5), 505–511.

McArthur, J. (2012). Bearing Witness - A guest blog by Anita Krajnc, Co-Founder of Toronto Pig Save.

On-line blog posted 1st May, 2012 and accessed on 15th October, 2015 from the World Wide

Web at: http://weanimals.org/blog.php?entry=168

McNeil Jr., D. (2008). Ideas & Trends: When Human Rights Extend to Nonhumans. New York Times

on-line print article posted 13th July, 2008 and accessed on 27th December, 2014 from the World

Wide Web at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/weekinreview/13mcneil.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slo

gin&

McManus, R. (2013).NIH Record - From New Vantage: Ex-Director Zerhouni Surveys Value of NIH

Research. Vol. LXV. No.13. On-line newsletter published 21st June, 2013 and retrieved on 17th

August, 2014 from the World Wide Web at:

http://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2013/06_21_2013/story1.htm

Mead, M. (2000). The Study of Contemporary Western Cultures: And Keep Your Powder Dry: An

Anthropologist Looks at America. New York: Berghahn Books.

Meier, D. (1996). Supposing That. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(4), 271-76.

Melson, G. (2001). Why the Wild Things Are: Animals in the Lives of Children. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

160

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception. London, UK: Routledge.

–––. (1964). The Primacy of Perception. Evanston, ILL: Northwestern University Press.

Mertens, D.M. (2003) Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-

emancipatory perspective. In A.Tashakkori & C.Teddlie (Eds.) Handbook of mixed methods in

social &behavioural research (p.135-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mienczakowski, J., and Moore, T. (2008). Performing data with notions of responsibility. In J. Gary

Knowles and Ardra L. Cole (Eds.) Handbook of the Arts in Qualitative Research (p. 451-458).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,

Miller, J. (2015). Harvard Medical School News-Legacy Continues as Center Closes. On-line article

posted on 31st May, 2015 and accessed on 9 July, 2014 from the World Wide Web at:

http://hms.harvard.edu/news/legacy-continues-center-closes

Miller, J.L. (1998). “Autobiography and the Necessary Incompleteness of Teachers’ Stories.” In, Ayers,

W.C. and Miller, J.L. (Eds.) A light in dark times: Maxine Greene and the unfinished

conversation. Teachers’ College Press.

Mirza, D. (2013). Interview with M.C. (Digital Videotape). Recorded for CTL1018H Introduction to

Qualitative Inquiry course at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of

Toronto on 16th July, 2013 and accessed on 22nd August, 2013. Toronto, ON: Independent.

Mirza, D. (2013) Davis Blog: Close Down All Slaughterhouses. Posted 3rd July, 2013 and accessed

from the World Wide Web on 4th August, 2013 from:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=13fa4043d00c4cec&mt=application/v

nd.openxmlformatsofficedocument.wordprocessingml.document&url=https://mail.google.com/m

ail/u/0/?ui%3D2%26ik%3Dffcd3d7f76%26view%3Datt%26th%3D13fa4043d00c4cec%26attid

161

%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26realattid%3Df_hiodax6j0%26zw&sig=AHIEtbSCWy_063E2SC7

1Qs7PCcc2Ug0YTQ

Mirza, D. (2013) Davis Blog: Close Down All Slaughterhouses. Posted 13rd July, 2013 and accessed

from the World Wide Web on 4th August, 2013 from: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=13fa3d981ce68377&mt=application/v

nd.openxmlformatsofficedocument.wordprocessingml.document&url=https://mail.google.com/m

ail/u/0/?ui%3D2%26ik%3Dffcd3d7f76%26view%3Datt%26th%3D13fa3d981ce68377%26attid

%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26realattid%3Df_hiobpz1s0%26zw&sig=AHIEtbQuiksGVWDs918

2wdhYF6HHq0Vr8w

Modirzadeh, L. (2013). Documentary Theatre in Education-Empathy Building as a Tool for Social

Change. In, Culturally Relevant Arts Education For Social Justice - A Way Out of No Way.

M.S.Hanley, G. W. Noblit, G. L. Sheppard and T.Barone (eds.). New York, NY: Routledge, 47-

56.

Molloy, A. (2014) One in ten Swedes is vegetarian or vegan, according to study. On-line print article

posted on 24 March 2014 in The Independent and accessed on 29 August, 2015 from the World

Wide Web at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/one-in-ten-swedes-is-

vegetarian-or-vegan-according-to-study-9212176.html

Moore, C.J. and Mepham, T.B. (1995). Transgenesis and animal welfare. ATLA 23, 380-397.

Motavalli, J. (2008) The Meat of the Matter - Our Industry Creates More Greenhouse Gas

than Transportation Does. In The Environmental Magazine- on-line article posted 30th June

2008 and retrieved 14 August, 2013 and 13th January, 2015 from the World Wide Web from:

http://www.emagazine.com/includes/print-article/magazine-archive/6576/

Moyes, 2003. Survivors [Television series episode]. Now with Bill Moyers. New York, NY: PBS.

162

Mumford, L. (1955). The Human Project. Edited by Harry T. Moore and Karl W. Deutsch. Boston:

Beacon: 213-214.

New England Anti-Vivisection Society (2015). Animals in Research and Testing. On-line article posted

on the NEAVS.org website and accessed on 7th January, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.neavs.org/research/overview

Noddings, N. (2006). Critical Lessons: What Our Schools Should Teach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Noonan, Jeffrey. (2012) Academic Freedom Endangered in Ontario: Drummond Report threatens

universities’ academic excellence. Magazine article retrieved from the CCPA Monitor-Canadian

Centre for Policy Alternatives, 18(10), 14-15.

Noske, B. (1989). Humans and other animals-Beyond the boundaries of anthropology. London, UK:

Pluto Press.

Novak, B. (2014). Animal research at NIH lab challenged by members of Congress. On-line Reuters

print article posted on 24th December, 2014, and accessed 4th January, 2015 from the World

Wide Web at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/25/us-nih-ethics-baby-monkeys-

idUSKBN0K300120141225

Oakley, J. (2012). Dissection and choice in the science classroom: student experiences, teacher

responses, and a critical analysis of the right to refuse. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 8(2),

pp. 15-27.

Oakley, J. (2013). “I didn’t feel right about animal dissection”: Dissection objectors share their science

class experiences. Society & Animals, 21(1), pp. 360-378.

Oberg, C.M. (2008). Performance Ethnography: Scholarly inquiry in the here and now. On-line article in

Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 2(1), 1-4. Posted August 2008 and

163

retrieved on 22nd November, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.kpu.ca/sites/default/files/Teaching%20and%20Learning/TD.2.1_Oberg_Performance

_Ethnography.pdf

Oliver, K. (2008). “What is Wrong with (Animal) Rights?” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy,

22(3), 222.

O’Neill, C. (2006). Foreword. In J. J. Schneider, T.P. Crumpler & T. Rogers (Eds.). Process drama and

multiple literacies: Addressing social, cultural, and ethical issues. (ix–xii). Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Ontario Ministry of Finance (2012, February 15) Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public

Services, Chapter 7, Post-Secondary Education- Revise Research Funding Structures,

Recommendation 7-16. Toronto, ON: Queen's Printer for Ontario. Retrieved on June 24th, 2012

from the World Wide Web:

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/reformcommission/chapters/ch7.html#ch7-d

OpenRescue.org (2015). About Open Rescue-Philosophy, History, The Rescue Teams. On-line article

posted March 2015 and accessed on 8th July, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.openrescue.org/about/index.html

Osei-Kofi, N. (2013). Exploring arts-based inquiry for social justice in graduate education. In M.S.

Hanley, G. Noblit & T. Barone (Eds.), A way out of no way: The arts as social justice in

education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Oswald, W. (1992). [Ethics of animal research and application to humans]. Etica da investigação no

animal e aplicaçãoao homem. In Acta medica portuguesa, 5(4), 222-225.

O’Sullivan, S. (2011). Animal, Equality and Democracy. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

164

Oxford English Dictionary. (2015). ethnography, n. On-line dictionary accessed on 1st November, 2015

from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/64809?redirectedFrom=ethnography#eid

Palmer. J. (2009) Science and Environment: Glowing monkeys 'to aid research'. British Broadcasting

Corporation on-line print article posted on 27th May, 2009 and retrieved on 19th August, 2013

from World Wide Web at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8070252.stm

Paperman, P. (2010). “The Different Voice and the Political Scope of the Ethic of Care” in Nurock, V.

(Ed.), Carol Gilligan et l‘éthique du “care”(p. 79-90). Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.

Pawlik, W.W. (1998). [The significance of animals in biomedical research.]. Znaczenie zwierzat w

badaniach biomedycznych. In Folia Medica Cracoviensia, 39(3-4), 175-182.

Pederson, H. (2010). Is “the Posthuman” Educable? On the convergence of educational philosophy,

animal studies, and posthumanist theory. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education

31(2), 237-50.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (2012). PETA Issues - Animals Used for Experimentation:

Alternatives to Animal Testing. Norfolk, VA: PETA. On-line resource retrieved July 22nd, 2014

from the World Wide Web at: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-

experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/

–––. (2012). PETA2 Free For All - Alternatives: Testing Without Torture. Norfolk, VA: PETA.

Retrieved June 22nd, 2012 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.peta2.com/TAKECHARGE/t_factsheet_testingalternatives.asp

–––. (2012). Living: Beauty and Personal-Search for cruelty-free companies and products. Norfolk,

VA: PETA. Retrieved June 22nd, 2012 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.peta.org/living/beauty-and-personal-care/companies/search.aspx?Testing=1

165

–––. (2014). Victory! UGC Bans ALL Animal Dissection. Norfolk, VA: PETA. Posted on 8th June,

2014 and retrieved 11th August, 2014 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.petaindia.com/blog/victory-ugc-bans-animal-dissection/#comment-36642

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals India. (2014). Educators: Get Virtual Dissection Software –

Free! Mumbai: PETA-India. Posted on 1st November, 2012 and retrieved on 11th August, 2014

from the World Wide Web at: http://www.petaindia.com/features/educators-get-free-virtual-

dissection-

software/?utm_campaign=0814%20Virtual%20Dissection%20Software&utm_source=PETA%2

0Email&utm_medium=Promo

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (2014). PETA Issues - Animals Used for Experimentation.

Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint Norfolk, VA: PETA. Online article posted in

2014 and retrieved from the World Wide Web on 30th December, 2014 at:

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/

–––. (2015). About PETA - Success Stories: PETA’s Anti-Skins Campaign: Keeping Skeletons Out of

the Closet. On-line article posted on peta.org 2015 and accessed on 13th July 2015 from the

World Wide Web at: http://www.peta.org/about-peta/learn-about-peta/success-stories/skins-

campaign/ peta.org (2015) PETA Issues - Animals Used for Experimentation in U.S. Government Animal Testing

Programs: PETA’s Regulatory Testing Department. On-line article posted on January 2015 and

accessed on 12th July, 2015 from the World Wide Web at: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-

used-for-experimentation/us-government-animal-testing-programs/animal-testing-depth/

–––. (2015). About PETA Issues - University of Kentucky Forced to Release Experimentation Records

to PETA. On-line article posted on February 2015 and accessed on 12th July, 2015 from the

166

World Wide Web at: http://www.peta.org/about-peta/victories/university-of-kentucky-forced-to-

release-experimentation-records-to-peta/

–––. (2015). About PETA- Frequently Asked Questions: Why does PETA sometimes use nudity in its

campaigns? On-line article posted on March 2015 and accessed on 13th July, 2015 from the

World Wide Web at: http://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/why-does-peta-sometimes-use-nudity-

in-its-campaigns/

–––. (2015). PETA Issues - Animals Used for Experimentation: PETA Petitions EPA to Formally Adopt

Animal Welfare Guidance. On-line article posted 5th April, 2005 and accessed 14th July, 2015

from the World Wide Web at: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/hpv-

rulemaking-petition/

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (2015). The Physician Committee-Animal Tests for

Pesticide Products. On-line article posted July 2015 and accessed on 11th July, 2015 from the

World Wide Web at: http://www.pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/pesticides/animal-tests-for-

pesticide-products

PCRM (2011). Colleges and Universities Conscience Objection in the Classroom. On-line article posted

February 2011 and accessed on 11th July, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/animaltesting/colleges-and-universities-

conscientious-objection

Poirier, S. (2009). Doctors in the Making: Memoirs and Medical Education. City, IO: University

of Iowa Press.

Pollan, M. (2006). The omnivore’s dilemma: A natural history of four meals. New York: Penguin.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception. London, UK: Routledge & K. Paul.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). The Primacy of Perception. Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press.

167

Power, S. (2002). ‘A Problem from Hell’: America and the Age of Genocide. New York, NY:

Harper/Perrenial.

Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Richards, D. (1994). The New York Times Theatre Review: Twilight -- Los Angeles, 1992; A One-

Woman Riot Conjures Character Amid the Chaos. On-line theatre review posted on 24th March,

1994 and retrieved 13 August, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/24/theater/review-theater-twilight-los-angeles-1992-one-

woman-riot-conjures-character-amid.html

Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In: Denzin, Norman, and Lincoln, . (Eds.).

Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd Edition (p. 723-948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

–––. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.K Denzin & Y.S.Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of

qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Robinson, F.M.C. (2013). The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments (Review). In Journal for

Critical Animal Studies, Volume 11, Issue 1, 2013. Posted on 18th August, 2013 and accessed on

28th June, 2015 from the World Wide Web at: http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/07/JCAS-Vol-11-Issue-1-2013.pdf

Robinson, M. (2015). Social Justice and Human Rights - What is Social Justice? On-line academic

article posted by the Appalachian State University - Department of Government and Justice

Studies and accessed on 29th July, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://gjs.appstate.edu/social-justice-and-human-rights/what-social-justice

Rowe, B. (2011). In Understanding – Animals -Becoming –Meat: Embracing a Disturbing Education.

From Critical Education.2 (7). On-line article posted on 20th July, 2011 and accessed from the

168

World Wide Web on 4th August 2013 at:

http://m1.cust.educ.ubc.ca/journal/index.php/criticaled/article/view/132

–––. (2009). Animal Rights and Human Growth: Intellectual courage and extending the moral

community. Philosophical Studies in Education 40: 153-166.

Rowland. M. (2006) Articles - #5 Microdosing and the 3Rs. Retrieved from the National Centre for the

Replacement, Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research website and posted February

2006. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on 15th April, 2014 in:

http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/news.asp?id=193

Ruiter, Z. (2015). Now Magazine News: On the front line with Pig Save. On-line print article posted on

17th June, 2015 and retrieved from the World Wide Web on 27th June, 2015 at:

https://nowtoronto.com/news/on-the-front-lines-with-pig-save/

Scarry, E. (1985). The Body in Pain: The Making and the Unmaking of the World. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Scarry, E. (1999). On beauty and being just. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 13.

Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare (1989). Animal Experimentation: Report on the Senate

Select Committee on Animal Welfare. Canberra, AUS: Australian Government Printing Services,

2.

Shapiro, K. (1998). Animal Models of Human Psychology: Critique of Science, Ethics and policy.

Seattle, WASH: Hogefe and Hubee.

Shapiro, K. (1994). The Caring Sleuth – Portrait of an Animal Rights Activist. In, Society and Animals

Vol.2, No. 2. Isle of Harris, UK: White Horse Press.

Shapiro, K, and Peter Field. (1987). “A New Scale of Invasiveness in Animal Experimentation.”

PSYETA Bulletin 7, 5-8.

169

Sinner, A., Leggo, C., Irewin, R., Gouzouasis, P., and Grauer, K. (2006). Arts-based education research

dissertations: Reviewing the practices of new scholars. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(4),

1223-1270.

Singer, P. (2008). Of Great Apes and Men. The Guardian on-line print article posted 18th July, 2008.

Retrieved from the World Wide Web on 27th December, 2014 at:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/18/animalwelfare.animalbehaviour

Smith, A.D. (1994). Twilight Los Angeles 1992. New York, NY: Anchor/Doubleday, 25.

Smith, R. (2012). Arts: Reading boosts empathy, but sympathy for the devil too. On-line print article

posted in The Globe and Mail on 16th May, 2012 and retrieved on 20th August, 2015 from the

World Wide Web at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/reading-boosts-empathy-but-

sympathy-for-the-devil-too/article4179359/

Smuts, B. (2001). “Encounters with Animal Minds.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 8, 293-95.

Sobel, C. (2015). News - Queen’s fails animal research test. In Queen’s University ‘The Journal’ on-line

print article posted on 20th March, 2015 and accessed on 10th July, 2015 from the World Wide

Web at: http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2015-03-20/news/queens-fails-animal-research-test/

Solot, D., & Arluke, A. (1997). Learning the scientist’s role: Animal dissection in middle school.

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 26(1), 28-54.

Sperling, S. (1988). Animal Liberators: Research and Morality. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press.

Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant Observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Stanisstreet, M., Spofforth, N., & Williams, T. (1993). Attitudes of undergraduate students to the uses of

animals. In Studies in Higher Education, 18(2), 177-196.

170

Stueber,K.R. (2006). Rediscovering Empathy: Agency, and the Human Sciences.

Cambridge, MASS: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 9.

Sun, S. (2012) "The truth behind animal testing." Young Scientists Journal July-Dec. 2012: 83.

Accessed from Academic OneFile on the World Wide Web on 25 July 2013 at:

http://www.ysjournal.com/

Sullivan, N. (2005). “Somatechnics, or, the social inscription of bodies and selves.” In Australian

Feminist Studies, 20(48), 363-366.

Sztybel, D. (2007) Animal Rights Law: Fundamentalism versus Pragmatism. In, Journal for Critical

Animal Studies, Volume V, Issue 1. On-line academic article posted in 2007 and accessed on 28

August, 2015 from the World Wide Web at: http://sztybel.tripod.com/arlaw.pdf

Taconic. (2014). Products & Services: Animal Models – GEMs. On-line website posted in 2014 and

retrieved from the World Wide Web on 18th April, 2014 at:

http://www.taconic.com/GEMs#%23conditions

Taylor, K. (2011). Books and Media – Essay: Why fiction is good for you. Online Globe and Mail print

article posted 10th September, 2011. Accessed from the World Wide Web on 30th December,

2014 at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/why-fiction-is-good-for-

you/article593693/

Taylor, N., & Signal, T.D. (2005). Empathy and attitudes to animals. In Anthrozoös: A multidisciplinary

journal of the interactions of people and animals, Volume 18, Issue 1. New York, NY: Taylor &

Francis Group.

Terry, J., & Urla, J. (Eds.). (1995). Deviant bodies: Critical perspectives on difference in science and

popular culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

171

Thomas, J. (2013) Unpatients: The Structural Violence of Animals in Medical Education. In Journal for

Critical Animal Studies, Volume 11, Issue 1, 2013 (ISSN 1948-352X). Accessed on 19th August,

2013 from the World Wide Web at: http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/07/JCAS-Vol-11-Issue-1-2013.pdf

Tooley, M. (2012) Are Nonhuman Animals Persons? In Tom L. Beauchamp and R. G. Frey (eds.), The

Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Online research article posted on May 2012 and retrieved

from the World Wide Web on 26th December, 2014 at:

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195371963.001.0001/oxfordhb-

9780195371963-e-13

Torres, C.A. (2014). First Freire- Early Writings in Social Justice Education. New York, NY: Teachers

College Press: xxi.

Tuttle, W. (2005). The diet: Eating for spiritual health and social harmony. New York,

NY: Lantern.

United Nations News Centre. (2006). “Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars,

UN report warns.” On-line article post by the United Nations News Service on 29th November,

2006 and retrieved on 20th March, 2015 at:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772

University of Toronto Animal Rights Club. (2013). Mice and rats are considered expendable “models”

at U of T... (Pamphlet) Toronto, ON.: University of Toronto Animal Rights Club.

University of Toronto – Department of Pharmacology and . (2013). SCS 2900

Pharmacology: Principles and Clinical Applications -- Online Pharmacology course description.

Posted on September 2014 and retrieved from the World Wide Web on 2nd March, 2014 at:

http://onlinepharmacology.med.utoronto.ca/

172

University of Toronto Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Office. (2011). Animals,

Research and Health. Request file released by the Office of the Vice President, Research,

University of Toronto on 17th August, 2011 and accessed on 22nd August, 2013. Toronto, ON:

Freedom of Information and Privacy Office. University of Toronto Research and Innovation.

(2012). Animals in Research: Animal Use Form. Posted on January 2012 and retrieved

from the World Wide Web on 3rd March, 2014 from: http://www.research.utoronto.ca/wp-

content/uploads/documents/2013/05/AUPF-2013.pdf

US Department of Justice (2009) Pharmaceutical Company Eli Lilly To Pay Record $1.415 Billion For

Off-Label Drug Marketing: Criminal Penalty is Largest Individual Corporate Criminal Fine. US

Department of Justice Press Release posted 15th January, 2009 and retrieved from the World

Wide Web on 25th June 2013 at: http://www.justice.gov/usao/pae/News/2009/jan/lillyrelease.pdf

Vosters, Helene. (2013). Impact Lab and The Halprin Life Art Process: A Practice-Based Approach to

Creative, Affective, and Political Mobiliation. In Canadian Journal of Practice-Based Research

in Theatre, 5(1). Accessed from the World Wide Web on 20th August, 2013 at:

http://cjprt.uwinnipeg.ca/index.php/cjprt/article/viewFile/51/36

Wagner, B. J. (1998). Educational drama and language arts: What research shows. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Waldau, Paul. (2001) The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Waldau, P. (2011). Animal Rights: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

173

Walkerdine, V, H. Lucey and J. Melody (2000). Subjectivity and Qualitative Method. In T. May (Eds.),

Qualitative Research in Action (p. 179-198). London, Thousand Oaks, New : Sage

Publications.

Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York, NY: Allen & Unwin.

Weisberg, Z. (2009) “The broken promises of monsters: Haraway, animals and the humanist legacy”,

Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 7(2), 34.

Welowszky, J. (2015). Meet new furry friends-Sanctuaries offer a unique look at animals. Print article

posted in the Toronto Star on 24th June, 2015 and accessed on 25th June, 2015. Toronto, ON:

Torstar Corporation, E1 & E8.

Wertheim, M. (1995). Pythagoras’ trousers: God, physics and the gender wars. New York:

W.W.Norton & Company.

Wikipedia (2013) Open Rescue [Wikipedia – The Free Encyclopedia] Published on 14th March, 2013

and accessed on 10th August, 2013 from the World Wide Web at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_rescue

Williams, S. (2013) Health Policy Cause: Now We’re Turning Animals Into Factories for Our Drugs?

On-line print article posted on 18th August, 2013 from the Care2 website. Retrieved on 19th

August, 2013 from the World Wide Web at: http://www.care2.com/causes/now-were-turning-

animals-into-factories-for-our-drugs.html

Zahavi, D. (2008) “Simulation, Projection and Empathy.” Online PubMed 17(2) article posted by the

US national Library of Medicine-National Institute of Health on 14th April,2008 and Accessed

on 22 August, 2015 from the World Wide Web at:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18411058

174

Zalm-Waxler, C. and Raie-Yarrow, M. (1984). Research Traces Altruism in Toddlers. American

Psychological Association Monitor, 15(1).

Zoocheck Inc. (2014). Print correspondence from Executive Director, Rob Laidlaw. Posted on 20th June,

2014 and accessed 12th August, 20014. Toronto, ON: Zoocheck Incorporated, 1-2.

APPENDIX A

PLAY ONE

Interview with Rita Shresthowser at Scarehorne University

Written by Davis B. Mirza

(It is early afternoon and Rita Shresthowser is lounging on an old, beat-up sofa on the front porch of Hanson House, a mixed-gender dorm located on the campus of Scarehorne University in Trenton, Ontario. Her extended legs are crossed and propped awkwardly upon a white wooden railing as she gently strokes a brown rabbit beside her on the couch. She is wearing a baggy pair of grey sweatpants and an oversized green hoodie with a white Scarehorne U insignia emblazoned on the front. The interviewer begins recording using a digital camera mounted on a tripod that is ten feet from the couch)

RITA: Hi, my name is Rita Shresthowser…that’s Howser like as in Doogie Howser, not Hoser…which is, ahhh, what my roommate Stephanie likes to call me when we go drinking at the Scarelie after class (Laughs). I’m originally from a small town called Bobcaygeon …which is kinda famous because the Tragically Hip (Simultaneously holds up both her hands to form C’s and quickly yells “Can Con!!” to no one in particular) wrote a song about us, uhhhmm, you know… (Starts to hum to herself until she finds the verse and softly sings) “Cause it was in Bobcaygeon where I saw the constellations…reveal themselves one star at a time….” (Sighs and pauses to reminisce) You know, those night-time stars are siiiick!! (Positive emphasis on the word)

Anyway, I’m getting off track and I only got a half-an hour till my next class. (Pulls cell phone out of her hoodie pocket to check the time) Ahhmm, I’m OK. So… I’m a fourth year bio-med student at Madeline Buckler College and I guess, (pauses) yeah, it was this time last year, sometime ‘round spring when I rescued this hairy beeeast (Says it in a low comforting moan and then picks up the brown rabbit and puts it on her lap) She’s my Empatheia…we call her MP for short…don’t we? (Looking directly at the rabbit while scratching between the rabbits ears… the rabbit drops her head on its paws and closes her eyes) I found her trapped in the Med Sci lab in

157 176

the Avery Building and…and, you know, I sometimes can’t even talk about it... knowing…how, uhmmm, close she was…to, ahhh, (Rita pauses to think, swallows hard and looks down at the rabbit…a wisp of her hair falls across Rita’s nose and she quickly pulls it behind her ear…her eyes are watery and she takes several seconds before looking up composed and somewhat relieved)

I was waiting for Steph outside the lab—her lab is in the basement of Avery, so I was gonna text her to let her know I was there…waaaiting!! (Emphasis on the word, looking irritated). She’s always late, cleaning up and stuff, checking messages, blah, blah… so I started pacing and looking into some of the lab windows down the hall– ahhh, you know, to see what experiments they were doing when I noticed a cage just inside the window. (Looks off in the distance to the right and then looks down at the rabbit)

Inside that cage was this tiny brown fur-ball (Gently grabs the rabbit with both hands causing the rabbit to open its eyes) looking as miserable as hell. Weren’t-choo? That place was so dreary and smelled so strongly of DZT chems. Uhhhgggg! (Shivers slightly) Those are the chemicals used in Draize tests. I’ve done those tests…uhhmm, and there are two types. Ahhh, one, that is done in the, uhmm, eye with whatever B,C, D or E-category chemical that’s assigned. It’s usually to test the degree of, uhhhmm, irritancy (Reveals some guilt and shyness after saying the word) and…uhhmm, the other test is done on the (pause) animal’s skin.

MP was sooo lucky though, since they were doing skin tests on her back. I could see she had hardened patches of skin and singed tufts of hair where the chemicals got’ er. What a trooper, eh? Sitting there in that cage, looking all beat up…waiting for me tah…. (pause) I have no idea why those Draizers think a rabbit’s eye is the same as a frick’n human eye!! I think it’s all these tests are curiosity driven…like, every 72 hours, they gotta Draize a rabbit enough to…we call it “DARE to go blind” in the lab because of this kinda of, uhmmm, invasive testing procedure. I dunno if you wanna hear this but…. (She strokes the rabbits ears and covers them consciously) Steph’ll tell you ‘cause it’s, uhhhmmm, not pleasant.

OK! No lie, I felt nauseous after the first or second experiment on a live mouse but over time you kinda feel like you’re part of something bigger so you wanna keep up with the class ‘cause their

177

counting on you…yah don’t wanna let the team down –right?! Everything seems so much more important than (Trailing off)… life.

What generally happens during Draize experiments is that we, ahh, (quickly changes word selection) they, uhmm, take several rabbits that are kinda immobilized in metal stocks so that their heads are forced to stick out. So they’re stuck there and then their eyes are held open using clips on their eyelids to prevent’em from (pauses) blinking. I’m sorry. (Rita picks up the rabbit protectively and holds MP close to her chest) These poor critters sometimes break their necks and backs ‘cause they’re so frightened... trying to escape. (Solemnly with guilt) I’ve done Draize tests that’ve lasted six or seven days. The rabbits I tested had swollen eyelids, a bunch of bleeding, and, of course, blindness and a whole lot of nasty sores around the eyes.

The worst part of all of this, is that we C-graded the data tests as “Moderate” pain which under CCAC standards is kinda low. Sorry, I should explain what all that means. CCAC is short for Canada Council… I mean Canadian Council on Animal Care. Yeah, it’s, ahh, a bit of an oxymoron (pauses to look at interviewer). I know what you’re thinking but that’s all that’s out there guiding… uhmm, well…best practices. (Rita looks shamefully down at MP and gives him a quick kiss on the nose) That’s why I couldn’t let’r go--I owe her that much. That much I do know.

Soooo…long story short, Steph sneaks up beside me and scares the bah-Jesus outta-me. Since she’s got keys to all the labs being a senior assistant, I just flat out asked her to open that lab door so I could get MP outta that cage. At first, she just hummed and hawed about, “final stages of testing…” BS; “…can’t let rabbits out of cages because of SPP rules” BS; and “… there’s these Standards of Practice Protocols for all Med Sci students” BS. Like I said, waaaiting for Steph… takes some kinda patience!!! (Laughs) Anyway, I’m waiting on Steph until she looks in the little window beside me and notices this cage marking. I could tell she was upset because she said, “Oh nooo…it’s been X-factored” which in Sci-nerd terminology means it’s got 24 hours to live before it gets euthaniz… I mean before it has to di…well (slowly)… before it gets put down.

I was starting to lose it, so I just said, “Steph - Open the door!!” If she wasn’t going to do anything I sure as heck would…did she want me to grab those keys off her? That’s when Steph

178

said “Go- Go!” She made up her mind right there and then! I mean, it was kinda scary but I was so proud of that girl for helping me rescue little Miss Fur-ball here. Steph even said that if anyone asked her where the test model went, she’d say it died of natural causes (Rita chuckles and grins) and was humanely disposed of. That’s Steph! Totally outta my league!!

I knew what MP was up against if I let her stay in there. I, I couldn’t allow myself to leave ’er there just waiting to die like that. I made sure no security staff were around (pause) and I walked quickly over to the cage stealth-like as not to frighten the poor little thing…I found the detach mechanism on the cage – usually it’s a steel lever the size of an Allen key just on the underside of it. (Moves her left hand to pick at the lever and starts flicking her index finger back and forth) That flips the cage door open and shut. So I tilted the lever up, which slid the cage door open and I, I leaned my hand in enough so I could reach far enough in… and wouldn’t you know it (Laughs)...Superwoman here (Points to the rabbit) jumps right into my hand. PLOP!!

I was so shocked! I mean I was kinda speechless. I did, I didn’t know what to, to do. So much stuff came rushing through my heart, I mean, my, my mind. Like all this was somehow meant to happen!? Like I was put there at that moment…in my life to, ahhh, I mean, for me, I mean for her. (Quickly) I, ahhh, still can’t explain it but I knew I loved that brown fur-ball the second she jumped into... my life. I mean I haven’t really talked about it too much—I kinda just… just did what my heart told me to do.

So from there, I, ahhh, managed to get ole’ MP outta that cage and put’s in my hoodie. That’s when I knew I had to get outta that lab and that’s when Steph said we could take the rabbit to her vet-friend over on Mayo Road and get ’em all checked out. Which was a good thing ‘cause poor MP had such a bad cut on her right foot that she needed stitches—my guess is she cut herself trying to paw her way outta that awful cage, like some kinda hell-bent, furry ninja!! She wasn’t too pleased about getting all sown up in front of a bunch of strangers though but... (Laughs)

I’d say it’s been almost a year now since that rescue (Proudly) and here she is – Tah-dah!—as good as new—yeesssssss, we’re talk ‘in ‘bout you. (Pause to stare into rabbit’s eyes) I love her more than anything. Even my parents, who were reluctant in the beginning, can’t imagine life without Empatheia. I mean, I think, they realize how happy she makes me feel. She’s definitely a

179

family member now ‘cause she’s like, ummm, a little sister that I never had. (Continues to stare at the rabbit)

I gotta say, all that testing on innocent animals is so damn cruel though--I mean, do you know how painful it is on them?. Trust me – I’ve been there. It’s brutal! (Shaking her head)

You know, it’s made me quite aware of the rights of animals. I never really thought about it before--and I was somewhat against animal research when I first started at Scarehorne but having a rabbit in your hands and playing with her for a little bit and try to… trying to (Hands gesture) em… empathizing with the conditions that they must live under is kinda one of the reasons I named her Empatheia…it’s kinda like my daily reminder to treat animals like how I would like to be treated.

I mean (Pause) the attitude of humans toward animals is just horrible—all those poor, innocent rabbits in that science lab getting burned and blinded. They haven’t done anything to us so how can we call ourselves civilized when we grade experiments by the amount of suffering they can endure. I dunno…I imagine if we were one of those rabbits and subjected to that kinda pai…those invasive experiments…we wouldn’t like it too much either. (Silence)

(Posing a question directly to the rabbit) I guess you’re the lucky one, huh MP? (Rita checks her cell phone) Ohh shoot… I’m so sorry, I gotta go. Can we stop it here? (Rita gently gathers up the brown rabbit in her arms and turns to walk back into her dormitory, ascending the stairs quickly to get ready for her next class.)

THE END

APPENDIX B

Ethnographic Monologue: Jana’s Open Rescue at Ryder University

Written by: Davis Mirza (06/05/14)

PLAY TWO

JANA: Sometimes life offers mysteries that help us believe that a special force guides our lives, and this is one story that illustrates that point. But it could have easily been a very different story. If I had taken the original route across the university campus like I planned on earlier, the puppy that I rescued would have been used for animal research and probably killed. This frightens me and makes me also angry toward my school, Ryder University (RU), which continues to test on animals. This is my story and how I came to rescue, Rose, that fateful September day. When you read this, keep in mind: is this just coincidence, or something more?

I remember it was cloudy and overcast that day, and I was in no mood to talk never-mind listen to an impromptu lecture on philosophy, but here I was strolling absent-mindedly beside Professor Martin Rosenski as he mused about the state of philosophy, specifically, his on-going fight to save the Department of Philosophy in Education from further RU budget cuts.

It was just after four o’clock in the afternoon when I was leaving the Graduate Student Centre after picking up a bursary application. I was walking quickly to the bus stop on the other side of the quad when I bumped into the Professor. At the time, I was trying to convince myself that by asking for a bursary during the first week of grad school, I would somehow be ahead of all those other students applying for a hand-out. Thinking like this did not make me feel any better about returning to Ryder University, so I really did not mind being distracted from my own concerns, as the Professor updated me on his battle against “university technocrats” – making the analogy that philosophy was just like plumbing--something that nobody notices until something goes wrong. His sense of calm in the wake of an impending storm put me at ease…so much so that I found myself taking the longer route to get to my bus stop as we slowly walked past the shiny new Medical Science building. After saying our good-byes, it was here that I sensed the

162 181

Professor’s embarrassment at having to leave me just outside the north loading dock of the Med Sci complex as he hurried into the Midgley Building across the street.

I was going to double back the way I came but realized a short cut through the Med Sci building would save me a ten-minute walk around the perimeter of the building. Just then, I heard a high pitched beeping sound of a campus cargo van backing its way down the ramp into the Med Sci loading dock and the loud unbuckling of a garage door opening. I don't recall speaking or interacting with the driver at all but I do remember watching an animal care attendant, begin unloading several dogs that were all in cages, including four puppies.

As I began ascending the side steps toward the building, the attendant looked up, made eye contact with me and then summoned me over to the railing. “Excuse me, but could you give this dog a home?” Pointing at the cage, she continued, “I’m only asking because it’ll just end up in the research labs upstairs…and I don’t think this puppy deserves that…do you?” The attendant bent over the cage, opened it and gently took the puppy out, holding it up for me to take. I was stunned and didn’t know what to say. But then the puppy seemed so excited from meeting a new friend or just getting out of that cage that she nearly jumped out of the attendant’s arms. I instinctively descended the steps and took the puppy into my arms just to keep her safe. The lab- attendant immediately stepped back without upsetting the puppy and turned toward the truck to unload the rest of the cargo, the six other dogs in cages that were in various stages of distress.

(JANA stops the monologue, visibly upset from this revelation and begins to clutch her hands)

There was this scary moment when I realized I had to get this little puppy to safety. I knew this dog was now mine and I was not going to ever give her up as I began cradling her against my shoulder and neck - it was so deliciously soft I could hardly believe how attached I was becoming to my furry friend. I was so sure of this feeling of love even as I kept staring at the loading dock wondering what would happen to all the other dogs once they went inside that building.

I then asked rather haltingly about the fate of the other dogs. The animal care attendant told me the dogs were from a First Nations’ reserve up north and that they were gathered up and shipped to pounds but after the holding time was up, the university bought them for their research. I

182 believe she said each dog was purchased for seven dollars, but this could be wrong. She also told me that she tried to rescue the puppies herself and that a couple of people at the university knew, but she had to be careful that no one higher up found out. I felt like this was her way of making peace with her role in the death of all those dogs, doing something to try and save at least one life.

I looked around to see if anyone else could help these poor dogs until I realized that I was all by myself with a small puppy in the middle of Ryder University. I turned cautiously and avoided taking the steps back up into the Med Sci building. I walked quickly, carrying the puppy back toward the Midgely Building which had a convenient entrance/exit lounge - recently refurbished to the Professor’s chagrin, I am sure. I was holding onto the dog a little too tight because I did not want her to run back to the loading dock. I hopped a curb, darted across the grass toward the Midgely doors, which immediately opened. When I looked inside the building to see if anyone might object to having a small dog in their midst, not a soul was in sight.

Professor Rosenski was nowhere to be seen either. As I walked toward the exit doors, which were directly left of the administrator’s office, I made sure to acknowledge to whoever was behind the reception desk that I was merely a student with my dog, just taking it for a stroll in the outer courtyard. The lights were on but not a single staff member was around. As I passed quickly through the exit doors, I was so relieved to find a long line of students still waiting for the city bus…I hadn’t missed it!

My luck held out until I began to board the bus-steps and noticed the driver motioning with his hand for me to back off the bus. The bus driver explained that dogs were not allowed on the city bus unless it was an attending-service dog. How strangely ironic that those words registered such anger in me when I remembered all those discarded dogs and the animal care attendant’s plea to rescue one. Those dogs would never climb out of those cages to attend or bond with a single human being. What is the difference between a service dog and a puppy from a research lab, anyway? I was about to say something to the driver but got off the bus without making a disturbance.

183

I resolved to take care of my new friend no matter what! I’d walk the rest of the way back home if I had to… or take a cab if there was one outside the McCoy library. Like a scene out of a movie, I spotted a cab idling outside the library and I began running toward it. With my new dog in one hand and my school bag in the other, I went to open the back door with some difficulty; my school bag made a loud thump against the door. Thinking quickly, I delicately took the puppy, opened the zipper of my bag, and removed my wallet to make room for the little dog. I then climbed into the back seat as unclumsily as I could. The driver made a strange face but before he could say anything, I calmly gave him the address to my apartment and told him that it was quicker to go down Salter Street as my place was located adjacent to it on a one-way street. Biting my lip, I stopped myself from saying “step on it” and instead, took a deep breathe to calm myself down, feeling a trickle of sweat slide down my forehead. I swivelled around to check on how the puppy was doing, hidden inside my school bag. I lifted the flap and I immediately started to his furry little head which calmed me down instantly. I began thinking how incredibly lucky I was to be at the right place at the right time to have saved this little dog’s life.

But when I thought about it a little more, I really was in the wrong place at the wrong time, doing something that may have been unlawful. I don’t care; we were now both safe and that was some kind of unexplainable gift. Rounding the bend of the university boulevard, the driver changed lanes as he passed a cyclist riding rather slowly in the right curb lane. I could not believe my eyes – there was Professor Rosenski riding his beat-up Raleigh ten-speed with his briefcase neatly tucked into his side basket. I thought about unrolling the window and waving at him but decided against it as the Professor was struggling to make progress against a blustery headwind that was coming across the open fields as we sped past the university entrance.

Strangely, if it was not for Professor Rosenski’s invitation to walk with him across the quad earlier that day, I probably would not be in a taxi cab with a no-name puppy jammed inside my school bag, clandestine-like.

If it was not for the courageous animal-care attendant’s hasty gesture to get my attention, there wouldn’t be a puppy in my school bag.

184

If it wasn’t for my bursary anxiety, I wouldn’t have been on campus at all – actual classes don’t begin until next week. So it seems I was destined to rescue this puppy. It is the only way I can make any sense of this.

And for that brief moment, I felt that I had been rescued. For all I knew, my little puppy came to rescue me! For that, I am incredibly grateful to…”ROSE” -- named in honour of Professor Rosenski’s power of persuasion. Rose, I promise you, you’ll never have to see the inside of a university research lab as long as I am alive…that’s one thing I am totally certain of. That and the fact that there was no real question about whether I should have taken you… I just knew that I had to.

THE END

APPENDIX C

Performed Ethnographic Interview – Skype Call with Pat (15/07/2014)

Written by Davis Mirza

PLAY THREE

Interviewer secures Skype connection with Pat who then clicks on Internet link (read below) of a video re-broadcast from a Eox4News outlet – WADF TV in Reno, Nevada.

Click: Laboratory raised beagles experience fresh air, green grass and sunlight for first time http://Eox4kc.com/2014/05/19/watch-laboratory-raised-beagles-experience-fresh-air-sunlight- for-first-time/thesis

Posted on EOX4NEWS.COM WADF TV Reno, 1:12 pm, May 08, 2014, by Basey Abbitt

RENO, Nev. — Ten dogs rescued from a research laboratory in Nevada, have recently tasted freedom for the very first time, and the moment was caught on video. The dog rescue was posted on-line by Beagle Liberation Trust and has gone viral; the organization is ecstatic that in one day the video link received over 1,000,000 hits. A spokesperson for Beagle Liberation Trust described the rescue as a “great success” as homes were found for all the beagles used in laboratory testing. Raised in cages at a Reno research facility, the ten beagles deemed the “Lucky 10” have, until now, never seen the light of day. “Beagles are used primarily by research labs because of their friendly, forgiving, and docile personalities,” reads the organization’s website. “Researchers will say these dogs do not mind being confined and like being fed. Most beagles however are usually obtained directly from breeders who specifically breed beagles to sell to research facilities where they will be caged and suffer through experiments only to die there. Beagle Liberation Trust thinks this is wrong and believes every animal deserves a life-worth living beyond animal testing.” The ten dogs have finally obtained names as opposed to the designated number tattooed on the inside of their ear. The animal rescue has struck a chord with millions of viewers who saw the beagles experience fresh air, green grass, and sunlight for the first time ever. Originally, the dogs were scheduled to be

167 186

euthanized but an anonymous research employee made a call to animal-rescue activists, and three days later the dogs were examined and given a clean bill of health before they were adopted by local Reno families. Click: http://Eox4kc.com/2014/05/19/watch-laboratory-raised- beagles-experience-fresh-air-sunlight-for-first-time/thesis

Interviewer: That is an incredible video! I remember when I saw it for the first time. I couldn’t get over how cheery and protective the beagles were towards each other yet somewhat guarded around their rescuers. I got teary-eyed just thinking how we were all at our sentient best… when you feel so happy knowing that those beagles are loving life now and will no longer be harmed -- freedom seems contagious! Do you remember that day? What role did you play in the open rescue of the “Lucky 10?”

Pat: I remember that day vividly. I was the first person to receive the text asking Beagle Liberation Trust (BLT) to find homes for the dogs. I just want to qualify the term ‘open rescue’ …we don’t do, “open rescue.” We don’t break in and steal the dogs or destroy property. We negotiate with labs through a friendly inside contact, usually a laboratory veterinarian or a lab technician. With the “Lucky 10” release, our source at the research facility was assured of anonymity so higher-ups would not be able to identify and punish that individual. I just wish more anonymous researchers would reach out to us as a way of saving animal lives. I have participated in 22 rescues and helped save 175 animals. One hundred and fifty of those animals were beagles—and we always manage to find a caring home for any unwanted beagle. Our prime motivation for doing this is that what is happening in those labs is nightmarish. The EOX News video actually shows the true nature of those dogs…they could teach human beings a thing or two about forgiveness after what they’ve been through.

Interviewer: Thank you for that insight. I’ve seen videos of animal experiments— it’s hideously painful. Many schools are now developing credible research alternatives that avoid animal testing. Do you believe animals should have rights that protect them from harm and/or exploitation in university laboratories?

Pat: There are animal rights that are supposed to protect beagles, they’re just not properly enforced or are in need of a seismic updating. We, at Beagle Liberation Trust, are opposed to

187

animal testing. We believe it is not good science. For example, researchers will induce feline which we entirely disagree with. This kind of animal-testing is both ethically and philosophically corrupt. Beagles are sentient beings and we should recognize their cognitive capacity, especially their ability to suffer and feel pain. I firmly believe that, when possible, research dogs should get a chance at a normal life, especially after the terrible experiments they’ve had to endure.

Interviewer: I agree with you that harming animals in the name of science is ethically wrong. You mentioned, at the start of the interview, that animals could teach us a thing or two about forgiveness. Why would those poor beagles trust any human being, never-mind forgiving them, after all they’ve been through?

Pat: Some beagles have the resiliency to overlook their past wounds and overcome daily challenges. Just because we can grasp the idea of complete forgiveness doesn’t mean other animal species cannot. When they come out of a research laboratory, they’re uncertain and anxious; once they realize we won’t hurt them they embrace their new life. I know this to be true, after reading Rod Michalko’s Walking with Smokie, when he explains (Pause to retrieve quote from e-book): “For a blind person and dog guide, leadership is not a static or immutable position held only by the human partner but something dynamic and fluid that flows from one partner to the other and back again—a relationship of trust flowing freely through the harness in both directions. They lead and follow one another through the world, moving as one. In this movement, they discover their world, come to understand it, and graciously meet any challenges and opportunities the world holds out to them. They make this world “their world.”” That relationship of trust between Smokie and Rod is essential in our work saving captive animals…it leads us back to who we are. I believe your “happy” experience - watching the release of the “Lucky 10” - is what makes your world their world…a world built on empathy and trust. You understand their pain, so, just as you would not hurt them, they would never hurt you. That reminds me, there’s a brave beagle you need to see…he was the star of the show at the State Legislature last week. 188

(Interviewer pauses to scroll through electronic correspondence sent by Pat and clicks an Internet link to a MSMBC Channel 12 news broadcast of protesters rallying at the State Legislature in support of the Beagle Liberation Bill.)

Faceless Announcer (dramatic rise in voice): You’re watching Channel 12 News @ 5:00 PM…our top story this hour…these are live pictures of a laboratory beagle being freed on the grounds of the State Capital for the first time.

Broadcaster: A former laboratory beagle took its first steps to freedom today at the State Capital. Jazzy the beagle was rescued from a lab at Fullerton University. He’s never been outside until now. His release to his adopted family is in support, of what’s being called, the Beagle Liberation Bill – a bill that promises to help free more laboratory beagles from research facilities. The legislation would mandate all state-funded labs to offer up former research animals for public adoption. Currently, the standard practice is to euthanize them when they are no longer needed. (Pause)

Interviewer: (Right clicks icon returning monitor back to a Skype image of Pat K.) That’s an incredible victory for Beagle Liberation Trust... to be featured on a mainstream news broadcast with a rescued beagle front and centre on the State Capital lawn. Jazzy seems pretty accepting of all that media attention… can you describe the kind of journey Jazzy made from animal experiment to media darling?

Pat: When local news affiliates EOX, VBC, and MSMBC told Jazzy’s story, he effortlessly looked adorable doing his part. Without getting ahead of ourselves, it’s also an incredible victory that our animal rights bill may soon become law thanks to the continued support of our State legislators – the passing of this Bill could literally save thousands of dogs for years to come. If you read the bill – I’ll send you a draft - it embodies compassion and common sense…how controversial could that be, right? (Pause) It is though, to opponents of the bill standing inside the State Capital building but not shown on that EOX clip. We’re up against a coterie of well- financed lobbyists getting paid by powerful research companies opposed to even the smallest compassionate gesture to save beagles’ lives. They know that the more the public sees the real faces of these dogs, who have suffered years of experimentation, the more the public will

189

scrutinize and demand modern methods of research that are cruelty-free! (Pause) That Fullerton beagle you just watched faced a cruel fate. On the verge of being euthanized by university researchers, Jazzy was literally on death-row awaiting execution. That was a difficult rescue for me. (Pause)

Do you know that Fullerton University researchers continue to experiment on hundreds of beagles? I’m convinced that with more volunteers at the ready, we’d be able to liberate even more beagles--not just the one. That’s why this bill is so important. It facilitates a relationship between the laboratories and the community so that at least a few animals - like Jazzy - can be saved.

Interviewer: I did not know there were so many other beagles in that lab. That’s very upsetting. There could have been packs of beagles roaming the legislative grounds celebrating their freedom.

Pat: Precisely.

Interviewer: Thank goodness you got Jazzy out.

Pat: Thanks to some hard work and a group of dedicated BLT volunteers, Jazzy got a second chance. As a six-month old beagle puppy, Jazzy spent the entirety of his short life as a test subject, never getting the chance to play or even smell fresh air. He is a silly, sweet little pup who just loves his new life. We owe this little guy a life-worth-living.

Interviewer: From the sound of it, animal protection seems like the exception and not the norm in most North American research labs?

Pat: That is partially true. Every aspect of a laboratory animal’s life is covered by state or federal policy, specifically, bedding, food, water, and pain management. But there are no guidelines for how to treat a dog or cat after the testing is done. These animals are no different than our own family companion animals and unfortunately, as a tax-payer who funds animal-testing, I would like to see these dogs properly cared for. I forgot to mention that the lab employee is the real hero here, since that individual saw a video of our work and decided at the last minute to get in 190 touch with us. The call came late at night telling us that Jazzy would be put down the following morning. After we confirmed the source, BLT moved pretty quickly and in less than 24 hours, we rescued Jazzy from Fullerton.

Interviewer: Wow! Now everybody knows him as the face on the Beagle Liberation Bill. I applaud your persistence and tact, Pat. A few years back, I did my undergraduate degree at a Canadian university which continues to test on animals, killing 90,000 animals every year including dogs, cats, squirrels, monkeys, humming birds and guinea pigs. When so many schools are developing credible research alternatives that avoid animal experimentation, do you believe it’s only a matter of time before all universities are legislated to end these experiments, given the harm they inflict upon animals?

Pat: Absolutely! No dog should ever have to be euthanized by a university lab because they are no longer needed as ‘test models’. This is simply irresponsible science that I’m happy to say many academic institutions are opting out of. Similarly, no dog should ever have to go through years of abandonment and pound-living because the research labs simply give the dogs away to anyone without knowing if they are prepared for the hard work it can be to rehabilitate a traumatized beagle.

BLT promises Jazzy will never be abandoned again after spending a lifetime in a university research laboratory. We don’t know the nature of the experiments he endured, but we do know from those tell-tale tattoos permanently inked onto his ears, that he was suffering from some PTSD. (Pause shaking his head) Imagine never having seen the light of day before. Jazzy was never given the patience, space, and peace by researchers to learn how to be the great dog that he is today. He is thriving and loving his new life. Jazzy’s foster family is coaching him back to health and happiness…and he’s loving every minute of it! (Laughs)

Getting back to your earlier point though, I’m glad you brought up your old university and the kinds of animals they do experiments on. We should not forget that other animals need our protection too. The pigs you mentioned live their whole lives inside a windowless laboratory and are commonly used for testing dermatological products because they have similar skin to humans. The surfaces of their little bodies are used as petri-dishes for exposure to high levels of

191

chemicals and toxic compounds found in make-ups, lotions, tanning sprays, and other noxious substances we slather on our bodies. They suffer severe skin irritations and burns. I have seen the physical signs of scarring on pig’s bodies from their time in those laboratories. Some of them were crudely cut open and sewn back-up; other pigs had foreign devices protruding from under their skin. So it is imperative that animal rights be put in place as a safeguard against the excesses of human vanity. I’m waving a flag here, but the Beagle Liberation Bill would facilitate the working relationship between the university labs and registered non-profit rescue groups, like Beagle Liberation Trust, so we can help screen for adoptee homes and give the adopters the support and resources they need to help these animals recover.

Interviewer: Thank you for that Pat. I’m curious about your animal advocacy bill before the State Legislature. Can you elaborate on the public adoption clause within the Beagle Liberation Bill?

Pat: Sure. Beagle Liberation Trust used Jazzy’s rescue to highlight the ‘Beagle Liberation Bill’ which we are still campaigning for at state legislatures across the United States. By taking his first few steps of freedom on the capitol lawn of the State House, Jazzy’s freedom and the fight to save others just like him dominated headlines. This kind of advocacy is strategically effective because it shames those university researchers, who would rather deny life than work with us, to affirm it. It also gets our message out to the masses without alienating them. The Beagle Liberation Bill is a piece of legislation that the public needs to support because it would mandate any state-funded laboratory, like those labs in universities, to offer up all their ‘research animals’ for public adoption. Currently, the standard practice in the USA and Canada is to summarily kill them when they are no longer needed. With this Bill, we can prevent cruelty and save lives in one legislative sweep!

Interviewer: Impressive -- that’s taking animal liberation up a notch. I hope this can be done sooner than later ‘cause many animal lives are at stake. I mean, this interview would have a completely different tone if you didn’t get that text to help rescue Jazzy. And it is truly that spirit of survival that resonates here, like how these laboratory beagles are such courageous survivors!

Pat: I agree with you. I offer my help to animals in distress because what happens inside those research labs is barbaric…liberating just one dog to the outside world can only be a good thing.

192

Saving the life of a beagle expands our conscious capacity to reduce suffering in the world. I believe everyone has that capacity to be conscious. My conscience is a big part of my personhood…helping free a dog from a university laboratory is simply my conscience asking me to take action. By ignoring conscious thoughts that say torturing a dog is wrong, we end up thinking we have a greater right to experiment on an animal than that animal has a right to live-- without suffering. It is a skewed interpretation of our place in the natural world, one that pits the human being as the bully on the playground bereft of any empathy or compassion toward others.

Interviewer: Thank you for that candid assessment. I just have a few more questions, specifically about your upbringing…were you an animal lover at an early age and if so, how has this helped you in your capacity to rescue animals?

Pat: While I was growing up, I had beagles as pets. At present, I have two beagles rescued from research labs. As far back as I can remember, I have loved and cherished the four dogs I’ve had throughout my life. Which helps me answer your second question: how I extend this caring capacity toward helping other animals in distress? My upbringing helped me strengthen my resolve to rescue animals… helping others seemed to help me as well, especially when it comes to understanding and living with animals. The beagles I grew-up with had a good life and were my constant companions around the house.

And because of that (Pause) it pains me to no end that researchers use beagles as the dog of choice in laboratories…simply because they are friendly, docile and non-threatening. The same qualities that endear them to adoptee families are also the same characteristics that make them suitable for experimentation. Imagine our capacity to forgive as a suitable characteristic for those who would also want to torment us? Our human species is systematically oppressing animals – millions of animals never see the light of day simply because, as research ‘models’, they are deemed unworthy-of-a life. That is why I am passionate about liberating animals confined inside those oppressive labs.

Interviewer: If I may ask, what are the names of your rescued beagles? And how are they doing?

Pat: Their names are Jacob and Bella and they are doing remarkably well at adapting to their new home life. Those two little dogs do more to provoke a conversation on animal-testing and the

193

need for painless alternatives with a simple wag of their tails than anyone can do with their best arguments. The survivors that BLT rescues from labs reminds the public that animal-testing is not an abstract process and those animals are not furry, little petri-dishes or test-tubes, but dogs no different than the ones living with millions of families across North America.

Interviewer: I find it difficult to think of animals as just test-tubes. It’s heart-wrenching listening to what these dogs have to go through…hearing about their emotional and physical pain. Listening to you, I keep wondering – “how anyone could hurt these animals?” (Interviewer pauses) Especially when you have described in some detail how these beagles are now experiencing the joy of freedom for the first time….and how they are provoking a debate about the necessity of animal experimentation. From what you said, it’s heart-warming to know we have so much in common with animals, especially your ability to relate to these friendly dogs. As a teacher, myself, I’m interested in finding out how you might teach students to empathize with animals as part of their schooling – you know, being able to feel the pain of other sentient creatures in order to help eradicate animal testing. It could be great lesson to learn.

Pat: It’s a compelling question—“how to teach empathy?” I believe it’s a combination of nature and nurture…a balance of the two is important. I’ve never thought why am I like this…it’s who I am. I was educated as a political scientist and it gave me a broader context of social justice and history. But having an academic pedigree did not provide training in the field of animal rescue. Nothing can. That is why empathy is a very important criterion of our human consciousness, and is especially significant in getting students to understand how to overcome the insidious nature of science that dominates the natural world. Teaching empathy gives students a better understanding of how human-centered technological power suppresses caring impulses within us…impulses that could save millions of animal lives. Scientists conduct research like they themselves have a greater right to test on animals than the animal has a right to live-- it’s corrupting students’ brains. I’m not speculating here. This is the reality in most universities. But when you actually bear witness to the trauma researchers inflict upon beagles in the name of “education” and “scientific progress,” you tell me if you still believe in animal experimentation. At BLT, we are making a conscious effort to empathize with animals through rescue operations that target laboratories where students and professors mete out violence to dogs, cats and even 194

pigs on a daily basis… something they would never consider doing to themselves, never-mind another human being. Animals are not chattel and are not objects. You can’t just disregard that they are living beings and have value independent of any financial worth. That is how we can build empathy for animals… as it provides motivation for you in your teaching practice and it builds empathy through the work that I do. And I believe these animals deserve extra care for what they’ve endured, don’t you agree?

Interviewer: Yes, of course. But not every politician or corporate lobbyist will agree with you.

Pat: That’s because curricula should be decided by experts, not politicians or corporations.

Interviewer: But we still need politicians to pass animal rights legislation, like the Beagle Liberation Bill you mentioned earlier, which could save hundreds of thousands of animals not just the “Lucky Ten” or a cute Fullerton University cast off, like Jazzy.

Pat: Duly noted. But students should have the right to the highest-quality science education, free of political interference, and they should be able to explore the causes and consequences of animal experimentation in order to learn that meaningful solutions exist. Some teachers feel unprepared to teach Critical Animal Studies. They feel that no one is there to back them up. But there are parents, scientists and rights-based organizations like ours, who are behind them 100%, offering great resources and supports, like our experienced volunteers and adoptee families. Are Canadian students even aware that they have the right to refuse to do experiments on animals? And are these same students made aware of alternate research methods that refrain from harming animals?

Interviewer: These are excellent questions you pose and I will include them in my research when I submit my Masters project for review. Thank you so much for taking time out of your busy schedule to share your thoughts with me Pat… your comments were inspiring and hopeful to say the least.

Pat: You’re welcome. And don’t forget, we are animals ourselves…helping animals, also helps us. 195

Interviewer: It’s so encouraging listening to your animal activism, Pat… all the lives you have helped to save… it’s just remarkable. Your vigilance has helped to change the debate around animal experimentation which I am truly grateful for. Not only do you not tolerate animal suffering, but you’ve also become proactive politically to stop it - which is amazing! I sense a momentum that’s building with every beagle rescue your part of— can I just say you’re winning more and more hearts and minds every day, Pat.

Pat: (Somewhat taken aback) Well, thank you for that.

Interviewer: No problem. I will definitely take this back to my university with the hope that similar changes can be made. I’ll email you the transcription notes once I’ve finished writing them up.

Pat: OK, that would be good. I have to go…I’ve got another interview on the line.

Interviewer: OK, thanks again for your time, Pat…have a good evening. Bye.

Pat: Bye.

(Interviewer makes a quick note on a pad of paper and clicks off the computer screen, folding the lap-top shut)

The End

Playwright’s note: Did you know that across Canada and the United States, there are nearly 65,000 dogs (mostly beagles) sitting in cages being used to test cosmetics, pharmaceutical drugs, household products, and academic curiosities with little or no hope of these animals ever getting out alive. These tests are often very painful, and frequently result in the death of these dogs. The Beagle Freedom Project is working to enact laws that would ensure research facilities give dogs a second chance at a life after research. Through ‘open rescue’, the Beagle Freedom Project has successfully found loving homes for approximately 150 Beagles who have spent their lives as test subjects in laboratories. Despite their sad beginnings, with love and nurturing, these amazing dogs can adjust, and become loving and beloved family members. Today, standard procedure is to summarily euthanize (destroy) all of these dogs. This needs to change and, with your voice joining mine, I am confident we can change things for all animals held in captivity in North American universities. APPENDIX D

Reflections on moving from Interview Data to the Play-scripts

My research project examined the divide between science and sentience. By linking sentient empathy with the struggle to end animal testing on campus, I implicitly challenge how my tuition fees sustain vivisection at the University of Toronto. In doing so, I shake off a certain amount of my own personal guilt, which prods me daily to do more to expose the ‘speciesist science’ behind vivisection that causes animals in the millions to needlessly suffer in pain and die.

From my own feelings of guilt and revulsion, I was compelled to develop dramatic narratives that were authentic to the multiple perspectives presented by the people involved in ‘open rescues’. The open rescuers presented valid reasons to end animal suffering, convincing me of its ultimate effectiveness. I have parenthesized the term ‘open rescue’ as the term means different things to different people, particularly among the respondents I interviewed. But generally, the term encapsulates the non-violent notion of giving aid, rescue and veterinary treatment to any confined animal known to suffer pain, neglect or is dying.

From my own personal experience as an animal rights activist, penetrating that culture of institutional indifference and its lack of empathy toward animals seemed like a monumental task at times. Yet, the open rescuers I interviewed directly challenged the culture of silence surrounding animal ‘research’, not only bearing witness to animal suffering but helping to rescue animals by removing them from harm’s way. Reflectively, commentary among participants and audience members could focus on the emotional and moral impacts of the three plays, its aesthetic devices and the pedagogical possibility that stories of ‘open rescue’ might affirm animal lives so that sentient empathy can be practiced among others.

By countering violence with non-violence, I acknowledge my situated-ness as a male researcher in a speciesist patriarchy where partial claims to knowledge assert authority through hyper- masculine violence. American writer and vegan activist Chris Hedges (2014) argues that resistance movements fall into a moral trap when they side with hyper-masculine extremism, particularly those elements of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Black Bloc whom argue that destroying property is a legitimate response to sentient oppression. In opposing the “disease

197

of the hyper masculine culture” and its tendency toward violence, Hedges (2014) warns resistance movements to tread carefully, I fear hyper-masculinity… which we cannot allow to infect movements of resistance otherwise we become no different than the white, male, hyper-masculine power structure that we are trying to dismantle (n.p.).

As a first-generation Indo-Canadian, I began to practice ahimsa on a conscious level in order to deal with the extremity of animal suffering I encountered. By abstaining from violent thoughts and harmful deeds, I set about converting interview transcripts into play scripts.

Qualitative research changes when it adopts an arts-based research focus which contributes to society’s understanding of social life (Richardson 2000). Hence, RIT scripts offer an alternative point of view – ‘open rescue’ stories detailing benevolent acts of kindness toward animals expose moral gaps; what may be deemed wrong among lawmakers (I.e. entering a research facility to remove ‘property’) feels morally right among concerned citizens (I.e. rescuing an animal from harm and imminent death) as it invites moral and ethical dialogue about the morality of animal testing. Norman Denzin (2003) contends that RIT reflexively clarifies its own moral position since ‘open rescue’ transcripts bring to light questions about morality (I.e. Do animals have moral agency and intrinsic worth?) that traditional qualitative researchers either fail to ask or merely uphold the normative structures of speciesist inequality. As a researcher, I reveal my complicity within structures of inequality as a former meat eater and user of various traps and poisons to kill an array of sentient life (mice, rats, squirrels, ants, flies, and mosquitos).

Intentionally, research-informed theatre becomes a critical tool in examining my own moral ambiguities concerning animal liberation – how could I convince my own university (UT) that animals deserve our empathy and moral concern realizing all the while that my tuition fees tacitly support animal testing? As a Masters Candidate in Curriculum, Teaching and Learning at OISE/UT, I have shed light on a hegemonic, speciesist power structure where the partialness of its truths (i.e. the denial of sentience) is juxtaposed with a credible alternative (like ‘open rescue’) that affirms sentient lives and moral connectedness. APPENDIX E

Interview Questions

1) University of Toronto researchers continue to test on animals - killing over 90,000 animals per year - even though many schools are developing credible research alternatives that avoid animal testing. Do you believe animals should have rights that protect them from harm and/or exploitation in schools?

2) What motivated you to ‘open rescue’ a captive animal? Include relevant details and emotional context before/during and after the rescue.

3) How has rescuing an animal changed your attitude towards animals, and respectively, has it changed your life?