March
2001
Animal
Welfare: Another Face of Cruelty?
By Joyce Friedman and Peter McKosky
|
|
|
Imagine a facility exists where eight dogs are
crammed into a small indoor cage with only a few inches of space per
dog. They have to climb over each other to reach food and water, thus
the smaller and weaker dogs get trampled. The dogs have had their teeth
pulled without anesthesia to prevent them from biting each other in
the cramped cages. The dogs never see sunshine or get exercise. After
several years they are butchered.
If this situation were well-publicized, surely, no group would spend
time and energy merely advocating for several more inches of cage space
per dog, not to have their teeth pulled, and to have three hours of
sunlight per day. Chances are almost every animal welfare and rights
organization would demand an immediate stop to this practice, that the
dogs be liberated and adopted out, and the perpetrators arrested and
convicted for animal cruelty.
However, if we replace the dog species with the chicken species, the
majority of animal advocacy groups would not take the same abolitionist
stance, even though millions of hens are subjected to similar conditions
on egg farms throughout the country. Almost ten billion “farmed
animals” of all kinds are subjected to intense confinement and
torturous treatment prior to being slaughtered for food. This number
does not include fish and sea animals. Most advocacy organizations
speak
out against the practice of intensive confinement but do not demand
that the killing of animals for food must in no uncertain terms be
abolished.
In fact, some rights organizations often hide their true abolitionist
goals for fear of seeming too extreme and losing credibility outside
the movement.
It is troublesome that animal welfare organizations openly advocate
for the abolition of some forms of animal torture, like the killing
of animals for their fur, and ignore others, usually the eating of animals
and the use of them in research. This distinction between animal welfare
and animal rights groups has existed for years, and is not acceptable
to activists who are fighting for the liberation of all sentient beings.
Animal Welfare: Another Face of Cruelty?
An example of this dangerous philosophy is the recent development
of a program by an animal welfare organization to endorse foods made
from the exploitation and slaughter of animals as long as such products
are made under conditions that are supposedly somewhat improved from
typical factory farming conditions. The program has requirements about
food, water, environment, weather protection, space, and supposed comfort
of the animals. Besides the fact that these standards are extremely
subjective, and that the torturous conditions in which animals are transported
to slaughter are not covered, this program simply reinforces the idea
of animals as human commodities and perpetuates the idea of human supremacy.
It pushes the public, who so desperately needs to be shifted in the
direction of compassion and lifestyle change, in the direction of maintaining
the levels of denial and comfort that they currently enjoy. People feel
that they can continue consuming sentient beings with a decreased sense
of guilt or responsibility, thereby continuing to financially support
the multi-billion dollar exploitative industries.
The speciesism in our society is at the root of animal exploitation.
Clearly animal welfare groups practice and encourage a form of speciesism
when they advocate only for improved conditions of exploited animals.
What is even more disturbing is that it appears that animal rights groups,
whose traditional goal is abolition, often engage in welfarist tactics
as well. While we have nothing but respect and admiration for those
who dedicate their lives to bringing about change for animals, we feel
that some tactics must be closely examined to determine whether they
might be more harmful than helpful in the long run.
Admittedly, it is extremely difficult to work for change in a society
in which it will take decades to abolish such large and powerful exploitative
industries, but we must be careful about the message we are giving the
public and at what cost to the animals. For example, when we campaign
for larger cage sizes and more humane chicken catching methods without
stressing the ultimate goal of animal liberation, although these changes
will possibly decrease animal suffering, it still sends the message
that it is morally acceptable to cage and round up animals to kill them
for their flesh, as long as it is done more humanely. For an animal
rights group to express only the welfarist message compromises the abolitionist
message.
This type of campaign would be comparable to a human slavery abolitionist
fighting for longer chains for slaves, and when a plantation agrees,
congratulating them and moving onto the next one. The message that slavery
is wrong and must be abolished is completely lost.
Often while activists are campaigning to ban a particularly cruel part
of an exploitative industry, compromising welfarist tactics are utilized.
For example, if we encourage restaurants to stop serving a type of meat
produced through methods of intense confinement in favor of serving
the same product from an animal who was less confined, what message
are we sending? Again, it is understandable to want to stop a very cruel
practice in favor of a less cruel one, but if we are advocates of a
philosophy of animal rights, these tactics present a compromised message
to the public which we feel only impedes progress toward ultimate liberation.
One approach could be to campaign for the banning of the food item all
together, while always openly stating that animals are not commodities
for us to use.
Strategies for Liberation
With such overwhelming cruelty, it is understandable to look for
smaller, more winnable goals, while simultaneously increasing the comfort
of suffering beings. And some goals are abolitionist in nature, such
as banning the debeaking and forced molting of chickens. Yet the resources
used to fight for welfarist goals can be used to get that much closer
to abolition. Just imagine if the time, money, and energy spent to campaign
for larger battery cages were spent on an extensive nationwide vegan
outreach campaign. There could be intensive grassroots activism, including
humane education, non-violent direct action against the exploitative
industries and rescues of their victims, and advertisements that send
the message that animals are not commodities. Activists could demonstrate
the mental disconnects and compartmentalization that people engage in,
whereby some animals are considered companions, while others are food,
clothing, lab subjects or performers. Creative strategies with cogent
imagery could enlighten people to the concept of speciesism, that exploiting
and killing sentient nonhumans is unjust and morally wrong. One way
to bring about this could be to somewhat minimize the focus on the suffering
on factory farms, and instead, to maximize the focus on the inherent
injustice of killing animals for our use. The goal would be to get the
concept of speciesism into societal debate, to ask: Do we have a right
to dominate and kill sentient beings for our use or amusement?
Animal activists fighting for the rights of all sentient creatures
are often told that the public isn’t “ready” to accept, for
example, that reptiles, fish, and birds deserve the right to not be
exploited. This may explain why many activists focus on puppies sold
in stores but not on other animals who suffer an equally tormented existence
in the “pet” trade. Admittedly, the overwhelming multitude
of issues requires the need to focus, sometimes quite narrowly. However,
the argument that we must wait for the public’s readiness before
addressing the apparently less important or interesting animals is dangerously
similar to the argument that we must first successfully fight for human
rights and only thereafter will the public be open enough to move on
to animal rights. If animal activists don’t urge the public to
have compassion for those animals who are not “cute and cuddly,”
then who will? The animals do not have time while we wait for the public
to come around. If the public doesn’t care about these animals,
it is all the more reason to stimulate a sense of justice for them.
Many current vegans could have been considered as “not ready” to
change, coming from exploitative backgrounds themselves. But almost
anyone can be ready if they are educated, exposed to the realities
of
exploitation, and given enough respect and room for growth.
For real change to have a chance to occur, we as activists need to
be more aggressive and not compromise our message. We need to cease
being
afraid to expose what the reality is, and how this reality is unjust,
morally reprehensible, and must, in no uncertain terms, stop. We need
to stop apologizing for caring about all sentient beings and stop trying
to sugar-coat our goal—a world where no sentient being experiences
human-inflicted suffering and death.
Joyce Friedman is an activist based in New York City.
She is involved in numerous local animal rights campaigns with the goal
of promoting a vegan society. Peter McKosky is an activist based
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is on the board of Animal Advocates,
Inc., a local animal advocacy group, and does animal rescue work.
