labrys, études féministes/ estudos feministas
juillet / décembre 2013  -julho / dezembro 2013

Interview of Joan Dunayer, author of Animal Equality: Language and Liberation (2001) and Speciesism (2004) by tania navarro swain

1. What is speciesism? What is the term’s origin?

I define speciesism as a failure, on the basis of species membership or species-typical characteristics, to accord any sentient being equal consideration and respect. Psychologist Richard Ryder coined the word speciesism in 1970. He didn’t explicitly define the term but wrote that speciesists don’t “extend our concern about elementary rights to the non-human animals.” Ryder addressed only the broadest form of speciesism, which I refer to as “old speciesism.”

2. You’ve categorized human attitudes toward nonhumans as old-speciesist, new-speciesist, or nonspeciesist. Please explain those categories.

Old-speciesists don’t believe any nonhumans should receive as much moral consideration as humans or have basic legal rights. In their view, sheer membership in the human species entitles an individual to special consideration. Old-speciesists value humans more than nonhumans even if the nonhumans are more sensitive, intelligent, and beneficial to others.

Unlike old-speciesists, new-speciesists favor legal rights for some nonhumans, those who seem most like humans in their mental characteristics. New-speciesists see animalkind as a hierarchy with humans at the top. Typically they regard chimpanzees, dolphins, and other highly cerebral nonhuman mammals as more important than other nonhumans. In general, they rank mammals above birds; birds above reptiles, amphibians, and fishes; and vertebrates above invertebrates.

Nonspeciesists reject human-biased criteria for rights. They advocate legal rights and equal consideration for all sentient beings.

3. Why do you believe all sentient beings should have legal rights?

By definition, sentient beings have awareness. They experience positive and negative feelings. Death ends all possibility of positive experiences. Therefore, all sentient beings need legal protection against humans who would needlessly deprive them of their well-being or lives. Legal rights protect interests. All sentient beings—and only sentient beings—have interests.

4. Who is sentient?

The scientific consensus is that all vertebrates are sentient. They can experience suffering and pleasure.

Like all vertebrates, most invertebrates have a lengthwise body axis that divides them into left and right sides. These invertebrates possess a brain, defined as a primary nerve center in the head. Among others, they include crustaceans, mollusks, insects, arachnids, earthworms, and flatworms. Abundant evidence indicates all invertebrates with a brain are sentient.

Radial invertebrates, who radiate out from a center, don’t have a brain as traditionally defined but do have a nervous system. These animals include comb jellies; cnidarians such as hydras, jellyfishes, sea anemones, and corals; and echinoderms such as sea urchins and sea stars. There’s growing evidence that radial invertebrates are sentient.

It’s important not to exclude any sentient being from moral consideration and legal rights. Therefore, every creature with a nervous system should receive the benefit of any doubt and be regarded as sentient.

5. What legal rights do you advocate for nonhuman beings?

Nonhumans need legal rights to protect them from humans. At a minimum, those rights should include rights to life, liberty, and property.

Overall, the law should prohibit humans from intentionally killing nonhumans. It should be illegal for humans to kill nonhumans for their flesh, pelts, or other body parts, except under extraordinary circumstances such as the otherwise-imminent starvation of someone stranded without access to adequate plant food. It should also be illegal for humans to kill nonhumans in testing or experimentation, even for some potential health benefit to others. However, the law should allow humans to (a) euthanize nonhumans experiencing apparently incurable suffering and (b) kill nonhumans who directly, immediately threaten someone’s health or safety, except that humans shouldn’t interfere with predator-prey relationships among free-living nonhumans.

Apart from a transition period following emancipation, all nonhumans should live unconfined and free from humans. “Animal agriculture,” vivisection, zoos, and all other practices and institutions that deprive nonhumans of liberty should be unlawful. It should be illegal for humans to torture any nonhuman. It should also be illegal for humans to intentionally maim, batter, or otherwise injure a nonhuman except in someone’s immediate, direct defense (excluding interference with natural predation). The law should prohibit humans from milking a cow, extracting venom from a snake, subjecting a turkey to forced insemination, or otherwise violating any nonhuman’s bodily integrity for exploitive purposes. In my view, the law should permit humans to (a) briefly restrain or subdue (e.g., tranquilize) a nonhuman, such as a lion or bear, to counter an immediate threat of serious injury or death and (b) remove small animals such as mice, rats, insects, and spiders from inside human-built structures, provided the removal doesn’t involve intentional injury. Otherwise, the law should prohibit humans from taking nonhumans captive, even briefly.

By law, nonhumans should own what they produce (eggs, milk, honey...), what they build (nests, dams, hives...), and the natural habitats in which they live (marshlands, forests, oceans...). All nonhumans living in a particular area of land or water should have a legal right to that environment, their communal property. The law should prohibit humans from appropriating or intentionally damaging nonhuman property. It should be illegal for humans to destroy or dramatically alter any “undeveloped” habitat. For example, humans shouldn’t be allowed to drain lakes, bulldoze woodlands, or slash and burn rainforest. Land currently inhabited by nonhumans and humans could remain cohabited, but humans shouldn’t be permitted to encroach farther into nonhuman territory (e.g., by building more houses on land occupied only by nonhumans).Nonhuman rights would entail new restrictions on human behavior. However, every expansion of human rights has likewise involved new prohibitions against unjust behavior, such as discrimination on the basis of sex or race.

6. I believe feminist agendas should include promotion of nonhuman rights. What are some parallels and links between sexism and speciesism?

Limiting rights to one species is no more logical or fair than limiting rights to one sex. Just as it’s sexist to give men greater moral consideration than women, it’s speciesist to give humans greater moral consideration than nonhumans. Sexists see men as superior to, and entitled to dominate, women. In parallel, speciesists see humans as superior to, and entitled to dominate, nonhumans. To sexists, masculine traits have more value than feminine ones. To speciesists, human traits have more value than nonhuman ones.

In various eras and cultures, the law has classified women as men’s property. Even today, women lack equal rights in most human societies. Worldwide, nonhumans continue to be categorized as humans’ property. Universally they lack even the most basic rights. As Carol Adams has emphasized, both women and nonhumans are commonly objectified as bodies or body parts, especially flesh. Male violence against women is rampant and, in many societies, both legal and socially acceptable. Human violence against nonhumans is routine and so massive that it can’t fully be grasped; worldwide, it’s not only legal and socially acceptable but the norm.

Sexist language is commonplace, speciesist language pervasive. Like the remark that a woman has “the mind of a man,” the comment that a nonhuman is “almost human” condescends. By limiting “animals” to nonhumans, speciesists separate humans from all other animals, whom they regard as inferior. By referring to all humans as “man” or “mankind,” sexists exclude women from humankind, which they associate with superiority and privilege. Indeed, speciesism underlies much sexist usage. Female-specific “animal” pejoratives such as bitch, old crow, stupid cow, and dumb bunny are based on contempt for nonhumans. Speciesism fosters sexism.

Sexism also contributes to speciesism. For example, the prevalent view that “real men eat meat” falsely links flesh consumption to strength and maturity. In reality, flesh consumption by humans is associated with health problems and needlessly causes enormous suffering and destruction.

7. What are some parallels and links between racism and speciesism?

Only unjust people limit equal consideration to members of their own race or species. Physical characteristics such as skin color or number of legs aren’t a valid basis for rights.

The similarities and connections between the former enslavement of African-Americans and the ongoing enslavement of nonhumans is particularly strong. Legally, enslaved African-Americans were property, not persons. As I previously mentioned, nonhumans continue to be categorized as humans’ property. Various states and countries accepted African-American enslavement. Every country on Earth currently accepts nonhuman enslavement. African-American enslavement was modeled on the captivity, breeding, and forced labor of nonhumans such as cows and horses. Along with cattle and horses, enslaved blacks were examined for age and condition and sold at auction. Frequently they were shipped with cattle. Like cattle, some enslaved blacks were branded with their owner’s mark. Slaveholders often had black men castrated, like bulls and stallions. Much of the vocabulary of African-American enslavement derived from “animal agriculture”: enslaved blacks were “stock”; rebellious ones were “broken” like horses; those who gave birth were “breeders.”

Racist whites often identify people of color with supposedly inferior nonhumans. For centuries, U.S. whites frequently characterized Native Americans as “wild animals” such as “bucks.” Slaveholders and plantation overseers often named enslaved blacks Monkey, Ape, or Baboon. Today gorilla and other terms for nonhuman primates are commonly used as epithets against blacks. Such erms are considered demeaning because nonhumans are deemed inferior.

8. Considering the cruelty that humans inflict on one another, particularly men’s violence against women, do you think nonhumans will ever have basic rights?

I believe at least some nonhuman apes or cetaceans will have legal personhood within the next few decades. I hope all nonhuman beings eventually will have legal rights.

However belatedly (and still not universally), men have extended legal rights to women. In the U.S., in South Africa, and elsewhere, whites have extended legal rights to blacks. Similarly, humans will have to extend legal rights to nonhumans.

Sexism didn’t end when women gained the right to vote. Racism toward African-Americans didn’t end when they ceased to be property. Nor will speciesism end when nonhumans cease to be property. However, nonhuman rights will greatly curtail human cruelty and injustice toward nonhumans.

Of course, achieving nonhuman rights is much harder than achieving human rights. To some extent, even the most disenfranchised humans can speak for themselves. Unlike nonhumans, humans can engage in organized opposition such as protests, boycotts, and revolutions. In contrast, nonhuman emancipation will rely entirely on the very group that engages in the oppression: humans. As more people refuse to participate in nonhuman exploitation and demand nonhuman rights, such rights will become reality.

Nonhumans might obtain rights before most humans support nonhuman emancipation. When the U.S. Congress enacted the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, thereby banning human slavery, relatively few U.S. citizens were actively abolitionist. Ultimately, judges and legislators will determine which nonhumans obtain legal personhood and when. Usually, lawmakers act in accordance with majority opinion but not always. Sometimes they reflect the views of a more progressive minority. A minority can effect tremendous change.

9. You advocate that all humans be vegan. Why?

Vegans reject nonhuman exploitation and its products. They avoid participating in intentional, needless harm to nonhumans. Vegans don’t eat food derived from nonhumans; wear clothes or accessories containing materials from nonhumans; buy household, beauty, or body-care products that contain nonhuman-derived ingredients or were tested on nonhumans; go to zoos, “aquariums,” or “animal” circuses; contribute to organizations that fund vivisection; or otherwise willingly participate in speciesist abuse. Widespread veganism would vastly reduce the currently massive amount of suffering and death that humans needlessly inflict on nonhumans.

A vegan diet offers a large variety of healthful, delicious foods. Except under extraordinary circumstances such as being stranded in a frozen wasteland or famine-stricken area devoid of plant food, humans needn’t eat any food from nonhumans. Indeed, abundant evidence indicates a vegan diet is safest and healthiest for humans. Vegans consume very little saturated fat and zero cholesterol. Veganism is associated with human longevity. In contrast, consumption of animal-derived food increases the risk of diabetes, osteoporosis, arteriosclerosis, heart disease, and various cancers.

Veganism also is the most environmentally friendly lifestyle. The flesh, egg, and milk industries cause enormous environmental destruction. Worldwide, “animal agriculture” is a major cause of deforestation. In the U.S., it’s the primary source of water pollution. Raising crops directly for human consumption requires far less land and energy; it maximizes the human food supply.

In every way, veganism is the morally responsible choice.

10. Until nonhumans have basic legal rights (i.e., are persons under the law), what are the best ways to advance nonhuman emancipation?

Advocates for nonhumans should seek to eliminate, rather than modify, nonhuman exploitation. All actions in behalf of particular nonhumans should be abolitionist—that is, prevent or end their exploitation. It’s impossible to protect nonhumans who remain in the hands of their exploiters. Supporters of nonhuman rights should explicitly advocate nonhuman emancipation.

One way to advance nonhuman emancipation is to publicize the realities of nonhuman exploitation. Most of the public is largely ignorant regarding the cruelty of commercial fishing, “animal agriculture,” “aquaculture,” sport fishing, hunting, vivisection, the pelt industry, the pet trade, “animal acts,” dog racing, horse racing, and other forms of speciesist exploitation. Images of abuse are especially powerful in motivating people to change their habits.

Advocates for nonhumans should promote veganism. They can distribute literature on the compelling reasons to be vegan, disseminate vegan recipes, prepare vegan food for guests, promote vegan restaurants and stores, share tips on vegan products, hold vegan bake sales and food festivals, convince restaurants and stores to offer more vegan meals and products, and promote cruelty-free beauty, body-care, and household products. Persuading people to adopt a vegan lifestyle decreases the number of nonhumans who suffer and die. It also reduces public acceptance of nonhuman exploitation.

Bans on particular forms of exploitation—such as rodeo, cockfighting, “fur farming,” dog breeding, or the production and sale of foie gras—also advance emancipation. So do bans on the exploitation or intentional killing of members of particular nonhuman groups. For example, jurisdictions can outlaw bear hunting, seal hunting, keeping cetaceans in captivity, and displaying elephants in circuses or zoos.

Abolitionist boycotts, too, can be highly effective. Activists can boycott particular products and enterprises that involve nonhuman exploitation—such as eggs, “veal,” zoos, circuses, horse racing, dog racing, companies whose body-care products are tested on nonhumans, and stores that sell clothing with “fur.” Activists also can oppose speciesist enterprises before they exist. For example, they can try to prevent a planned “aquarium” or vivisection facility.

It’s especially important that advocates for nonhuman rights bring legal cases that assert the personhood of members of particular species—say, chimpanzees or bottlenose dolphins. To date, such attempts have failed. However, the full emancipation of any group requires legal personhood. Any expansion of personhood beyond humans will constitute a major breakthrough.

Finally, advocates for nonhumans should seek to enlighten people with regard to speciesism. The concept of speciesism helps people connect all the ways in which they disregard nonhumans. Proponents of nonhuman rights should write and lecture against speciesism and point it out to family, friends, co-workers, and others with whom they interact. They need to explain the injustice of denying nonhumans legal rights, counter the notion of human superiority, and spread the conviction that all sentient beings are equally entitled to protection. Once people recognize speciesism’s inherent cruelty and injustice, there’s no further need to argue issue by issue. In the end, only a substantial reduction in speciesism can set nonhumans free.

labrys, études féministes/ estudos feministas
juillet / décembre 2013  -julho / dezembro 2013