Karen Davis: Moving Beyond the Rhetoric of Apology in Animal Rights

http://upc-online.org/summer08/rhetoric.html
Moving Beyond the Rhetoric of Apology In Animal Rights
Some Points to Consider

By Karen Davis, PhD

If we find ourselves "apologizing" for other animals and our advocacy
on their behalf, we need to ask ourselves why. Is it an expression of
self-doubt? A deliberate strategy?

Several years ago I published an article in Between the Species
entitled "The Otherness of Animals." In it, I urged that in order
to avoid contributing to some of the very attitudes towards other
animals that we seek to change, we need to raise fundamental
questions about the way that we, as advocates for animals,
actually conceive of them. One question concerns our tendency
to deprecate ourselves, the animals, and our goals when speaking
before the public and the press. Often we "apologize" for animals
and our feelings for them: "Anxious not to alienate others from our
cause, half doubtful of our own minds at times in a world that
often views other animals so much differently than we do, we are
liable to find ourselves presenting them apologetically at Court,
spiffed up to seem more human, capable ladies and gentlemen,
of performing Ameslan (American sign language) in six languages. . . ."

We apologize in many different ways. More than once, I've been
warned by an animal protectionist that the public will never care
about chickens, and that the only way to get people to stop
eating chickens is to concentrate on things like health and the
environment. However, to take this defeatist view is to create a
self-fulfilling prophecy. If the spokespersons for animals decide
in advance that no one will ever really care about them, or aren't
"ready" for them, this negative message will be conveyed to the public.

The apologetic mode of discourse in animal rights is epitomized by
the "I know I sound crazy, but . . ." approach to the public. If we
find ourselves "apologizing" for other animals and our advocacy on
their behalf, we need to ask ourselves why. Is it an expression of
self-doubt? A deliberate strategy? Either way, I think the rhetoric
of apology harms our movement tremendously. Following are some
examples of what I mean.

Reassuring the public, "Don't worry. Vegetarianism isn't going to
come overnight." We should ask ourselves: "If I were fighting to end
human slavery, child abuse or some other human-created oppression,
would I seek to placate the public or the offenders by reassuring
them that the abuse will still go on for a long time and that we are
only trying to phase it out gradually?" Why, instead of defending a
vegan diet, are we not affirming it?

Patronizing animals: "Of course they're only animals, but . . ." "Of
course they can't reason the way we do. Of course they can't
appreciate a symphony or paint a great work of art or go to law
school, but . . ." In fact, few people live their lives according to
"reason," or appreciate symphonies or paint works of art. As
human beings, we do not know what it feels like to have wings
or to take flight from within our own bodies or to live naturally
within the sea. Our species represents a smidgeon of the world's
experience, yet we patronize everything outside our domain.

Comparing the competent, adult members of other animal species
with human infants and cognitively impaired humans. Do we really
believe that all of the other animals in this world have a mental
life and range of experience comparable to diminished human
capacity and the sensations of human infants? Except within the
legal system, where all forms of life that are helpless against
human assault should be classed together and defended on similar
grounds, this analogy is both arrogant and absurd.

Starting a sentence with, "I know these animals aren't as cute as
other animals, but . . ." Would you tell a child, "I know Billy isn't
as cute as Tom, but you still have to play with him"? Why put a
foregone conclusion in people's minds? Why even suggest that
physical appearance and conventionalized notions of attractiveness
are relevant to how someone should be treated?

Letting ourselves be intimidated by "science says," "producers
know best," and charges of "anthropomorphism." We are related
to other animals through evolution. Our empathic judgments
reflect this fact. It doesn't take special credentials to know, for
example, that a hen confined in a wire cage is suffering, or to
imagine what her feelings must be compared with those of a hen
ranging outside in the grass. We're told that humans are capable
of knowing just about anything we want to know - except what it
feels like to be one of our victims. Intellectual confidence is needed
here, not submission to the epistemological deficiencies, cynicism,
and intimidation tactics of profiteers.

Letting others identify and define who we are. I once heard a
demonstrator tell a member of the press at a chicken
slaughterhouse protest, "I'm sure Perdue thinks we're all a bunch
of kooks for caring about chickens, but . . ." Ask yourself: Does
it matter what the Tysons and Perdues of this world "think" about
anything? Can you imagine Jim Perdue standing in front of a
camera, saying, "I know the animal rights people think I'm a kook,
but . . ."?

Needing to "prove" that we care about people, too. The next
time someone challenges you about not caring about people,
politely ask them what they're working on. Whatever they say,
say, "But why aren't you working on ________?" "Don't you care
about ________?"

We care deeply about many things, but we cannot devote our
primary time and energy to all of them. We must focus our
attention and direct our resources. Moreover, to seek to enlarge
the human capacity for justice and compassion is to care about
and work for the betterment of people.

Needing to pad, bolster and disguise our concerns about animals
and animal abuse. An example is: "Even if you don't care about
roosters, you should still be concerned about gambling" in
arguments against cockfighting. Is animal advocacy consistent
with reassuring people that it's okay not to care about the animals
involved in animal abusing activities? That the animals themselves
are "mere emblems for more pressing matters"? Instead, how
about saying: "In addition to the horrible suffering of the roosters,
there is also the gambling to consider." Expanding the context
of concern is legitimate. Diminishing the animals and their plight
to gain favor isn't.

In acknowledging the seriousness of other societal concerns, it
is imperative to recognize that the abuse of animals is a human
problem as serious as any other. Unfortunately, the victims of
homo sapiens are legion. As individuals and groups, we cannot
give equal time to every category of abuse. We must go where
our heartstrings pull us the most, and do the best that we can
with the confidence needed to change the world.

Be Affirmative, Not Apologetic

The rhetoric of apology in animal rights is an extension of
the "unconscious contributions to one's undoing" described
by the child psychologist, Bruno Bettelheim.* He pointed out
that human victims will often collaborate unconsciously with an
oppressor in the vain hope of winning favor. An example in the
animal rights movement is reassuring people you're trying to
influence that you still eat meat, or don't oppose hunting, as a
"bonding" strategy to get them to support a ban on, say, animal
testing. Ask yourself if using one group of exploited animals as
bait to win favor for another really advances our cause.

In fighting for animals and animal rights - "rights" meaning the
claims of other animals upon us as fellow creatures with feelings,
lives and interests of their own - against the collective human
oppressor, we assume the role of vicarious victims. To "apologize"
in this role is to betray "ourselves" profoundly. We need to
understand why and how this can happen. As Bettelheim wrote,
"But at the same time, understanding the possibility of such
unconscious contributions to one's undoing also opens the way
for doing something about the experience - namely, preparing
oneself better to fight in the external world against conditions
which might induce one unconsciously to facilitate the work
of the destroyer."

We must prepare ourselves in this way. If we feel that we
must apologize, let us apologize to the animals, not for them.

*Bruno Bettelheim, "Unconscious Contributions to One's Undoing,"
SURVIVING and Other Essays, Vintage Books, 1980.

©2008. The Rhetoric of Apology in Animal Rights is updated
from Karen Davis's original speech presented at the National
Alliance for Animals Symposium in Washington DC, July, 1994.

Posted on SHARE Yahoo group - July 4, 2008