Search www.satyamag.com

Satya has ceased publication. This website is maintained for informational purposes only.

To learn more about the upcoming Special Edition of Satya and Call for Submissions, click here.

back issues

 

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.

 


© STEALTH TECHNOLOGIES INC.
All contents are copyrighted. Click here to learn about reprinting text or images that appear on this site.