Book Reviews 227

and they came to realize the “sad havoc” and is one of the editors, which has helped en- “wanton destruction” they had perpetrated sure more representation for issues of ani- on the native animal populations. Some emi- mal ethics than might otherwise have been grants regretted the slaughter of the “crea- expected in a book of this vintage. tures that God has made,” claiming that it There are around 250 entries, varying seemed wicked to kill an animal just to prove in length from under a thousand to nearly one’s ability to do it (p. 80). 10,000 words, with many in the 1,000- to Well-researched and well-written, Ah- 2,000-word range. A number of leading mad’s study is an important contribution to theologians from the second half of the the history of the emigrants and their animals 20th century are among the contributors. during the overland trail migrations of the Articles set out to provide an overview of mid-19th century. Ahmad has ably demon- options and the history of each particular strated the emigrant’s growing relationship issue. The amount of bibliography provided with domestic and free-living animals. Yet, by each author varies significantly. she also points out that most emigrants were Entries relevant to the theme of this jour- driven by practical concerns and “under- nal appear to be limited to 13, or just over 5% stood that the relationship would be a tem- (i.e., a bit under 50 pages). They are “animal porary, practical one that lasted only until rights,” “countryside,” “creation” (by the fine the destination or the death of the animal” theologian Dan Hardy), “cruelty,” “environ- (p. 64). The emigrants often sold or traded ment,” “farming” (with a discussion of the their worn-out animals when they made it to mechanization, commodification, and “thin- their destination, claiming that the price of- gification” of animals), “green,” “,” fered for the animals proved too good to turn “,” “suffering,” “,” down (p. 64). Yet, Ahmad also demonstrates “,” and “zoos.” is that “without a positive relationship between either author or coauthor of most of these, emigrants and the animals, a successful jour- which shows how he has sought to secure a ney likely would not have occurred” (p. 86). place for in this volume. There is a lot of excellent, balanced ma- terial here. Perhaps this project was under- Dictionary of Ethics, Theology and taken because earlier versions are out of print Society. Edited by Paul Barry Clarke and and, hence, not widely available. Well and Andrew Linzey. (London, England: Rout- good, but an updated edition would have ledge, 1996 [transferred to digital printing made an even stronger claim to our attention. 2006]. 926 + xxxiii pp. Paperback. £34.99. ISBN: 978-0-415-86767). A Rational Approach to : Scott Cowdell Extensions in Abolitionist Theory. By Charles Sturt University . (New York, NY: Palgrave This is the unaltered reissue of a useful ref- Macmillan, 2015. 239 + xvii pp. Hardback. erence book from the mid-1990s. Its aim $100. ISBN: 978-1-137-43464-7.) was to advance dialogue between Judaeo- Clifton P. Flynn Christian traditions of faith and practice and University of South Carolina Upstate a range of key ethical issues, pointing out ar- eas of mutual influence and generally help- In her insightful analysis, Wrenn skillfully ing readers to navigate morally relativistic makes the case for a rational, scientific ap- waters. Oxford theologian Andrew Linzey proach calling for the elimination of animal

JAnE 7_2 text.indd 227 8/21/17 9:25 AM 228 Journal of Animal Ethics, 7 (2017)

oppression—in Wrenn’s words, “vegan abo- 1, Wrenn begins her analysis by examining lition”—not just “kinder” oppression. And the irrationalities of the bureaucratization while others have written thoughtfully and and professionalization of the animal wel- effectively about the strategic and theo- fare movement in the second chapter. She retical differences between “welfarist” and artfully applies the sociological writings of “rights” approaches to Weber—who first warned of the pitfalls (and the strengths of the latter), Wrenn’s of rationality—as well as Ritzer’s notion analysis stands out for several reasons. First, of McDonaldization to her critique. Her she insists on a scientific, empirical analy- sociological analysis reveals how these ten- sis of the movement’s effectiveness—its dencies toward irrationality have produced claims-making and its tactics. Second, she a welfare movement that is more focused takes a critical sociological approach, draw- on the survival of the professional agen- ing effectively from the literature on social cies, which includes, among other things, movements, bureaucracy, and inequality, to an emphasis on fund-raising and working examine the current status of nonhuman within “the system,” which undermines animal liberation efforts. And she power- meaningful social change on behalf of non- fully argues that a professionalized welfare human animals. “Nonhuman animal activ- industry does little to end animal exploita- ists have become trapped in the iron cage tion (and, in fact, likely normalizes it) and of nonhuman hegemony. is more concerned with fund-raising, the Squandering resources with the continued bureaucracy, and animal advocates than the implementation of tactics that do not work well-being of nonhuman animals. or that even worsen the condition of other Further, her critical sociological lens animals is irrational” (pp. 59–60). leads Wright to identify and challenge struc- In Chapter 3, Wrenn moves on to assess tural and systemic causes of all oppression, the tactics used of nonhuman animal advo- not just that of other animals. Embracing cacy, which she rightfully points out have an intersectionalist theoretical perspective, been subjected to little empirical analysis. Wrenn effectively argues that animal libera- The limited research that has been done tionists must fight to end all oppression: has been conducted by movement agencies themselves, producing not only a conflict of Vegan advocates must extend abolition- interest but a lowering of standards based ist theory to include the interests of all nonhumans, women, people of color, dis- on a welfarist philosophy and the ques- abled persons, elderly persons, children, tionable assumption that increased fund- homosexual persons, transgender persons, raising means social change. In assessing intersex persons and others. That is, all these tactics, she argues it’s important not persons, regardless of demographic affili- to “throw the baby out with the bathwater,” ation, are included in a rationalist, aboli- and Wrenn presents ways in which they may tionist ethic. (pp. 180–181) be reconceptualized and applied in a vegan abolitionist movement. Included in her critique are the roles of cap- The next two chapters take on the issue italism and religion in creating, reinforcing, of institutionalized oppression and inequal- and reinventing inequality between human ity within the nonhuman animal advocacy and nonhuman animals, as well as between movement, specifically as they relate to other human groups. gender (Chapter 4) and race (Chapter 5). After an overview of her arguments and In Chapter 4, Wrenn claims that a rational a preview of what is to come in Chapter

JAnE 7_2 text.indd 228 8/21/17 9:25 AM Book Reviews 229

approach must not only be scientific but also torically been used to justify racism, sexism, feminist. But feminist concerns have been and other oppressive ideologies) and that, largely left out of the movement, a movement consequently, a rational approach to ani- that, although comprised predominantly by mal rights must also be secular. And while females, has historically been led by males. I agree that theoretical perspectives on be- In her critique, Wrenn effectively attacks half of animal liberation should be secular what she calls “vegan pornography”—the in nature, it’s not clear to me that nonhuman sex objectification of one exploited group, animal advocacy can ignore either the reli- women, in campaigns to liberate another, gious perspectives that support the ethical nonhuman animals. According to Wrenn, treatment of other animals (e.g., the writ- “The movement invites society’s privileged ings of Andrew Linzey) or the millions of to consume and overpower female-identified believers for whom a sacred rationale might advocates in order to tap into the language become persuasive in leading ultimately to of patriarchy with the hope of persuading vegan abolition. viewers to not consume and overpower other In the final chapter, Wrenn summarizes animals” (p. 102). her approach, highlighting its emphasis on Similarly, in the next chapter, Wrenn empirical evidence, intersectionality, and identifies the animal advocacy movement the problems with capitalism and calling for as being a white, Western phenomenon a new definition of abolitionism: that has at best ignored and at worst ex- Abolition involves the dismantling of ploited those of different racial and ethnic physical and ideological structures of op- backgrounds—whose socioeconomic status pression. . . . To abolish speciesism means often contributes to their marginalization to end the institutions that oppress other (e.g., employees in animal industries such animals. . . . That said, abolition should as )—in the name of ani- mean more than working to end the vio- mal liberation. This chapter, drawing on the lence against other animals; it must also work of Nibert, also cites capitalism for its entail working to end violence against all role in the entangled oppressions of humans sentient beings. (pp. 192–193) and animals, arguing here and throughout the book that “human and nonhuman ani- All in all, A Rational Approach to Animal mal oppression are not only related but in- Rights is excellent (vegan) food for thought deed entangled. Nonhuman animal oppres- for scholars, advocates, students, and all who sion cannot be abolished so long as human care about the lives of nonhuman animals. oppression goes unchecked” (p. 124). In Chapter 6, Wrenn adds religion to the ideologies of sexism, racism, and capitalism Corporal Compassion: Animal Ethics that support inequality. “Religion, then,” and Philosophy of Body. By Ralph R. she writes, “can also be situated alongside Acampora. (Pittsburgh, PA: University of racialized, patriarchal, capitalist ideologies Pittsburgh Press, 2006. 201 pp. Paperback. of inequality and subjugation. This is be- $25.95. ISBN: 978-0-8229-6323-X.) cause religion, too, often presupposes that Steven Shakespeare some will benefit, and others will submit” Liverpool Hope University (p. 146). Wrenn argues religion supports speciesism and provides a justification One thing we share with nonhuman animal for animal use and misuse (as it has his- life is embodiment. Can this be the basis for

JAnE 7_2 text.indd 229 8/21/17 9:25 AM