Non Industry Partnership: Abolitionist Manifesto Part VI
Print This Post
James Crump and Karin Hilpisch wrote the “Abolitionist Manifesto” at the Abolitionist Animal Rights blog. This is part six.
“VI. Nonparticipation in the speciesistic exploitation of animals is an axiom of the abolitionist movement — as indeed it should be of any movement that purports to take animal interests seriously. The new welfarists’ partnership with industry — their promotion of institutionalized — but “humane” — animal slavery is rejected as being at best an expression of irredeemably defective (moral and theoretical) judgment and at worst evidence of outright corruption. As a matter of logic and morals, if animal use is inherently wrong, then the promotion of “humane” animal use is — necessarily — wrong; and as a practical matter, the conflation of the “animal rights” movement with the institutional exploiters represents the complete cooptation of the former by the latter. Moreover, since existing speciesist society is morally horrendous, it should be unequivocally condemned and rejected. Any concession to it — anything less than total negation — is a betrayal of the moral imperatives of animal rights. As such, the new welfarists’ promotion of “humane” animal slavery is a servile capitulation to injustice and oppression.”
I both completely agree and completely disagree. Here’s why:
Abolitionist movements tend to work alongside reform movements. There are examples in history: slavery, child labor, death penalty. Abolitionists want to end the practices entirely. Reformers have various goals: some want to end the practice but see reform as a necessary first step, others have no interest in abolition. In practice, the reformers urge for small, gradual changes and they tend to help shift the public attitude. Abolitionists urge for large, dramatic changes and they tend to help shift the leaders’ attitudes.
Even when they are working towards the same goal, reformers and abolitionists may undo each other’s work. The reformers think the abolitionists are too extreme and argue the abolitionists hurt the reformer’s movement by driving mainstream people away. The abolitionists think the reformers are too moderate (or even corrupt) and argue the reformers hurt the abolitionist’s movement by institutionalizing cruelty and making unjust, unethical practices more palatable for the public.
For example, when death penalty reformers work to tighten the system and make sure fewer innocent people are killed, they work against the goal of death penalty abolitionists by making state sponsored murder more palatable for the public. Abolitionists don’t want ANY innocent people put to death whereas reformers may want the same thing, but only work towards reducing the number of innocent deaths.
A death penalty without innocent death is impossible. Human systems are fallible. Choosing to keep state-sponsored murder is choosing to kill innocent humans, plain and simple. Anyone who believes it is wrong to kill innocent people should want death penalty abolition. But not everyone who believes capital punishment is murder does fight for abolition. Some are reformers. Why?
Because they see reform as a viable option. They think changing public opinion is a long and slow process that should be won in a series of small battles. And they have a point. The animal welfare movement has made great strides and has dramatically changed public opinion.
However, there are serious flaws with the reform perspective. Besides the flaw of inconsistency mentioned above and the flaw of institutionalizing softer cruelty, there is a problem with kinds. Reformers, wanting small and gradual change, will accept some rights rather than none, leaving others with larger and longer battles. A fight for all farm animals, like the fight abolitionists fight, will not leave birds, fish, and rabbits behind. The reformers, however, are more willing to accept wins on behalf of the cows, pigs, and horses and leave the other animals behind.
We’ve seen this thinking elsewhere. At one time, the American Women’s Movement and the American Slavery Abolition Movement were more closely united. But as the anti-slavery movement grew, misogyny slipped in and women were not allowed to attend (or when in attendance women were not allowed to speak) many anti-slavery conferences. As the two movements separated Black women were caught in the middle, partially accepted and partially neglected by both movements. Luckily, Black women can speak for themselves and fight for their own rights. They need and deserve help with their battles, but they are not completely voiceless, like non-human animals.
When movements divide, there are some winners and some losers. That is the danger of separating the animal rights & liberation movement from the animal welfare movement. Though the people within the movements may have different goals and different strategies working together as one community might make more sense than segregation.
So, that’s why I agree with James Crump and Karin Hilpisch that abolition is the better path but why I don’t agree with a total rejection of welfarism.
Respond