June
1996
HyperActivism:
The Phenomenon of Doing Without Achieving
By Henry Spira
|
|
|
While recognizing that most people care deeply about
the well-being of animals, it’s crucial to remember that right
thought and right speech, by themselves, are not enough. For activists
who want to make a difference, thinking must be linked with doing. Henry
Spira explains.
For some time the animal rights movement has been trapped in the nightmare
in which you run as hard as possible but can’t seem to move forward.
For all its growing resources and considerable energy, the movement
is barely scratching the surface of animal suffering and misery.
This is a tragedy given the remarkable progress made in the 1970s, a
period in which activists convinced society that the suffering of animals
matters. Today, polls suggest that more than 95% of Americans care about
the well-being of animals. Active supporters of animal protection in
the U.S. are counted in the tens of millions, and committed activists
in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. In the past two decades,
since animal rights emerged as a political force, the movement has built
a high profile — raising hundreds of millions of dollars in the
process and achieving notable success along the way.
Twenty years ago, animal activists challenged the status quo in lab
animal testing, focusing on the Draize blinding test and the LD50 death
tests. The victories which followed reshaped scientific and corporate
thinking and set the stage for a new science of alternatives to the
traditional use of laboratory animals. For animal projectionists an
important bridge was crossed. But instead of moving on to tackle even
greater areas of animal suffering, many activists continue to run back
and forth across the same bridge.
Looking at the universe of animal suffering in America today, we see
pain dominated by the more than seven billion farm animals. Roughly
95% of all animal misery is endured by animals raised for food. Why
then has the movement allocated only a fraction of its time and resources
to their plight? This is something that is only now, slowly, beginning
to change. Sometimes it seems as if more time is spent discussing whether
or not the public functions of animal organizations should be vegetarian
than fighting to protect farm animals. Meanwhile, farm animal suffering
is on the increase.
Many of Us, Few Achievements
How can so many activists with so many resources achieve so little?
Of course, this problem is not unique to the animal movement; there’s
a tendency among most social change organizations to repeat old strategies
that have produced success in the past rather than thinking ahead to
the future. Lack of imagination and bureaucratic inertia become the
norm and organizations just keep doing more of the same, year after
year.
Rather than moving ahead, looking for new horizons, animal protectionists
too often settle into the creeping routinism for which we criticize
animal researchers. Campaigns such as the ongoing bashing of cosmetics
companies have evolved into mindless ritual without beginning or end.
What, other than raising funds, is gained by activists continuing to
attack companies who have spent tens of millions of dollars responding
to the issues raised nearly 20 years ago? Clearly, this discourages
the corporate world from being responsive to new activist concerns.
In addition, it encourages cynicism inside and outside the movement.
Ironically, it may be the financial success of many animal organizations
that is proving to be the largest barrier to progress in the farm animal
arena. Faced with the need to maintain budgets and infrastructures,
many organizations are pressured to choose campaigns on the basis of
popular appeal rather than the urgent need to fight animal suffering.
If the public is more predisposed to opening its wallet for bunny rabbits
than seven billion chickens, it is not because they are any less deserving
but that the movement has yet to make a compelling enough case for their
misery. It’s worth remembering that some 20 years ago, the public
did not appear concerned with cosmetics testing on animals until the
issue was spotlighted through full-page advertisements in the New
York Times.
Failure to assess priorities and undue emphasis on lesser problems can
also muddy the real issues. For the last few years environmental organizations
have wallowed in their victory in persuading the fast food industry
to switch to more environmentally friendly hamburger packaging. The
fact of the matter is that the contents of the packaging represent the
real environmental threat, yet this continues to be largely ignored.
Focusing on the Fundamentals
Much of the above would suggest that the movement lacks a common objective.
While none of us can define exactly what an overarching strategy should
look like, we can probably agree on certain fundamentals. One such fundamental,
it seems, would be to acknowledge that the general awareness building
which was necessary in the 1970s and perhaps in the 1980s, needs to
be refocused. Right now, the urgent need is to focus on making a difference
in the lives of billions of farm animals.
We should try to persuade the public to include all animals in its circle
of concern. In its April 1, 1996 cover story, Barron’s, the Dow
Jones business and financial weekly reported that "surveys show
that seven out of 10 American pet owners now think of their pets as
children, and they are willing to spend on their pets as if they were
children." There is no unbridgeable gap between companion animals
and farm animals, though it may be convenient for those who eat animals
to think that there is. Is it not possible for the public to share some
of their affection for their non-human roommates with their room-mates’
close relatives? The needs and opportunities have never been greater.
And 95% of the American public wants to end animal suffering. Within
that framework, we need to assess how to use our energies more productively.
Let’s get out of the past and stop ignoring the vast majority
of animal misery. We activists need to remember our objectives and why
we’re doing what we’re doing. This involves a realistic
recognition of the problems to be addressed, a sense of what’s
possible, the ability to search out and seize opportunities as they
appear and, whenever necessary, to switch gears. This all fits within
the context of a stepwise, incremental movement. Rather than day-dreaming
about perfect and absolute solutions, activists need to push for the
most rapid progress. Above all, we need to continually assess what differences
we are making. Are we accomplishing all that we can to reduce the total
universe of animal pain and suffering? Clearly, we have the tools. Do
we have the will?
Henry Spira is the coordinator of Animal Rights
International. For more information on factory farming, send SASE to:
ARI, Box 214, Planetarium Station, New York, NY 10024.
 |
|
|
 |
