Review: Social Lives with Other Animals

You may have to be a real theory junkie to enjoy this book! I must admit, I found the first couple of chapters trying--I believe most would probably not be interested enough to continue(This is why I did not give the book 5 stars). Thus far, though, this is one of the most (if not the most) comprehensive sociological texts on human and nonhuman relationships. Most of the book is a review of the literature, exploring the fields of post-humanism, human animal studies, animal rights, and ecofeminism. I would not recommend this book for a beginner--this book is best suited to A) professionals or graduate students already in animal studies fields who are interested in the sociological literature on other animals or B) Sociologists interested in learning what the discipline has to offer species studies. I believe her intended audience is likely the latter, as there is a lot of effort put into explaining the living conditions of animals that would be well understood by those already studying animal issues. Indeed, while Sociology has historically been extremely exclusionary when it comes to other animals (a frustrating short sight given the emancipatory/critical nature of the field), Cudworth is able to ground the growing interest in animal studies in a rich(and interdisciplinary) body of work from contemporary Sociologists all the way back to the founding theorists(Marx, etc.). 

Again, the first chapters are primarily a review of the literature, but the meat of the book unpacks important concepts in speciesism. Chapter 4 covers the important gender variable in our relationships with other animals based on the work of Carol Adams. Though he is not referenced, Brian Luke's theory of masculinity and animal violence is heavily evidenced in her discussion of gendered foodwork and animal industry. Chapter 5 offers an overview of the institutionalized violence animals endure. Chapter 6 makes the case that humans and other animals have meaningful relationships. She explores this with an ethnographic study of human-nonhuman communities that form around dog-walking.

As with any social scientist worth paying attention to, she grounds her theory in emancipatory anti-speciesist practice. She extends quite a bit of effort criticizing some prevailing positions that, on the surface, may seem to be critical of speciesism, but ultimately make serious exceptions for continued oppression (so long as that oppression is made "nicer"). Cudworth introduces the concept of an "anthroparchy" to specifically view our relationship with other animals as a system of domination, oppression, and marginalization. Speciesism is not so simple as a mere prejudice for other animals--it is a historically situated project of human supremacy and animal exploitation. It is a system that benefits humans at the expense of vulnerable nonhuman animals. Addressing this system means ending this system, not reforming it. 

A side note--something I couldn't help but take issue with--she mentions that Gary Francione is rightly critical of reform approaches. However, she claims that he incorrectly has faith in law (and, thus, the state) in liberating other animals. I think this is a mischaracterization of his approach. She is right to say that he is critical of the law as it stands, but Francione believes that grassroots bottom-up vegan education that attacks speciesist ideology is the preferred strategy (and he is extremely critical of legal campaigns that seek to improve laws for animals). Francione operates according to a simplistic "supply and demand" logic that supposes that 1. Attacking speciesist ideology with vegan education and 2. Increasing vegan numbers to create a critical mass will 3. Dismantle speciesism. Nibert's approach is probably a better criticism to Francione's work in this regard, as Nibert places more emphasis on the inherent oppressiveness of the capitalist system. Most Sociologists agree that a capitalist state will always be oppressive. Francione seems to think that capitalism can work in favor of animals if we replace non-vegan industry with vegan industry. Perhaps this is what Cudworth was hinting at in her criticism, but her exploration into Francione's approach did not exceed more than a couple of sentences. Francione certainly isn't making the case that we look to the state to save animals. Indeed, he is highly critical of state institutions, bureaucracy, and hierarchy. However, Francione seems to think that the economy reflects ideology, but Sociology argues the opposite--ideology (and institutions) reflect our economic mode of production. Therefore, any attack on speciesism must also be an attack on capitalism.

Because this book is terribly dry at times (as it is basically an extensive summary of theory), I would not recommend it to the lay reader, but would probably suggest David Nibert's work instead or at least read them together. Nibert's work makes very similar arguments but is written in a more engaging way. Cudworth's book is probably best reserved for the serious academic or researcher. On the other hand, Cudworth's nuanced discussion of gender, foodwork, and animal exploitation, however, (heavily influenced by Carol Adams' sexual politics of meat) is an important extension on Nibert's work. 

All in all, a very useful addition to the growing Sociology of critical animal studies. Worth having on the shelf as an excellent resource and reference to the field. If you want to learn the sociological position on animal oppression--this is the "go to" text. For seasoned Sociologists, Cudworth's case for the inclusion of species politics is remarkably solid--I can't imagine any social scientist walking away from this book unconvinced. Nonhuman animals are part of our lives and part of our social world. We form relationships and communities with them. We benefit from them. They structure our reality. They also exist within systems of oppression in much the same way that vulnerable humans do--a relationship of violence that we have a moral obligation to recognize.

Review: The Ecological Hoofprint

The Ecological Hoofprint:  The Global Burden of Industrial Livestock was recommended to me by David Nibert as it is sociologically oriented and critical of animal product consumption.  It provides an excellent summary of the major environmental arguments against meat in the context of global inequality and the agricultural industrial complex.  It is a good companion to Meatonomics, This is Hope: Green Vegans and the New Human Ecology, and David Nibert’s work.  In general, I think this work is an excellent introduction into the sociology of food systems and environmental sociology.  It also speaks to animals & society discourse, though it is decidedly anthropocentric and speciesist in its conclusions.

It is very intersectional and critical of capitalism, tracing the historical process towards the system we have today. Weis argues that, in earlier times, most energy came from the sun (rather than fossil fuels) and travel was restricted because it was not efficient (a phenomenon he calls the “friction of distance”). Because the farmers couldn’t move around much, they had to take care of what resources they had locally available and farm more responsibly.  However, capitalism eroded this friction of distance with the rise of globalization and colonialism.  This has led to large scale environmental destruction and climate change.

The book also discusses how environmentalism has been framed in a way that obscures problems and protects capitalist interests.  Weis is refreshingly critical of the overpopulation rhetoric that blames environmental degradation on population (i.e. poor people and vulnerable communities).  This position ignores the role that livestock production plays.  He calls this focus on human population “corporate greenwash” and is critical of how technology, development, and capitalist growth are reframed as solutions, when they are, in fact, the problem.  Overpopulation rhetoric obscures global inequality and focuses on the more easily targeted “distant other”:

Rather than the persistence of high fertility rates being a cause of poverty and degradation, critics counter, these are better understood as a symptom or an effect of things like class, patriarchy, and other inequalities, and the dependence of the poor upon children for such things as labor and old-age security. (35)

This is perhaps the crux of his argument: We are ignoring the Nonhuman Animal component:

The ecological footprint presents a call to understand consumption in terms of the bundles of land, water, resources, pollution, and GHG emissions embedded in production, and in turn the tremendous environmental dimension of economic inequalities. The ecological hoofprint seeks to connect and extend some of these basic concerns to a different and much bigger ‘population bomb’ than what environmentalists have long focused upon: that which is occurring within systems of industrial livestock production. (50) 

A primary goal of the ecological hoofprint as a concept and metaphor is to call attention to the large, wide-ranging, and highly uneven burden of industrial livestock production.  To do this, it develops a political ecological framework for understanding the industrial grain-oilseed-livestock complex as a system in motion, and how its fundamental economic logic (or imperatives) gives shape to the social and ecological relations of production, including the associated instabilities and the ways they are overridden. (52)

Unfortunately, Weis operates under the assumption that animal products are good for human health, which is indicative that he has not addressed the volumes of research that have demonstrated quite the opposite.  He also hangs on to the falsehood that animal production could ideally be beneficial to humanity, even suggesting that small scale animal agriculture can be beneficial to the environment.  However, he does admit that not all societies relied on livestock or required it.  He also challenges the “contract” justification between humans and other animals (the fantasy that Nonhuman Animals happily give up their children, labor, and lives to be "cared for").  He rightfully refers to this as violent and evidence of human supremacy.  Much of the book also reiterates Nibert’s arguments and claims that animal agriculture is inherently tied to class and gender exploitation as well as colonialist expansion.  The rise of animal agriculture is a project of colonization and oppression.

To some degree, Weis is critical of the objectification of Nonhuman Animals and is quite critical of welfare reform (as it supports the logic of capitalism and only seeks to make industry more efficient).  However, it appears that the return to Old MacDonald's Farm is his ultimate desire:

An ecologically rational conception of efficiency thus turns a basic tenet of modernization on its head: rather than technology displacing labor in large monocultures, there is a need for labor and knowledge to displace mechanization. [ . . . ] In the course of rethinking efficiency, ways must be found to ensure equitable outcomes that valorize the labor, skill, and ecological services of bio-intensive farms [ . . . ].  What this analysis makes clear, though, is that dismantling the industrial-grain-oilseed-livestock complex is at the very center of any hopes of making world agriculture more sustainable, socially just, and humane” (149).

Weis suggests the “livestock population bomb” be addressed to reduce the livestock population dramatically.  He ends with a discussion of vegetarianism, humane farms, and veganism, but is very wishy-washy about veganism, indicating
that it is unrealistic or unnecessary.  This, I believe, is the greatest weakness of the book. Though the majority of the book was astonishingly intersectional, well-argued, and sociologically-sound, his stubborn refusal to seriously acknowledge the scientific research demonstrating the toxic effect of animal products on human health makes this book one I would probably not recommend.  No book that claims to take on environmental problems and issues of social justice but sells out the animals and continues to view them as expendable commodities will be credible social science in my opinion.  For this reason, I would direct readers interested in these topics to the books recommended at the beginning of this review, primarily that of David Nibert.

UPDATE 04/16/2014:

The author has since contacted me and is not happy with some of the conclusions I've drawn, specifically in my claims that he does not address the health risks of animal-based diets and the desire for a turn to "humane" farming practices.  I encourage readers to read the book for themselves and form their own conclusions.  This essay is a reposting from a review I posted on my Goodreads.com account. In that review, I gave the book 4 out of 5 stars, as I do think the book has quite a bit to offer the field. Given the choice, however, I would still recommend Meatonomics, This is Hope, or Nibert's 2002 and 2013 publications over this one.

The Science of Authority

In the Spring issue of Chickpea Magazine, I have contributed a piece that explores a social psychological phenomenon known as food-in-the-door. This phenomenon is increasingly pulled on by welfarist organizations to legitimate their reformist positions.  The assumption is that activists can get their foot in the door by selling higher welfare products, vegetarianism, or other forms of reductionism to the public. Following that, it will be much easier to transition people into veganism.

I have been critical of this kind of vegan science because it is generally conjured up to contend with criticisms that welfare reform does not work.  Though welfare reform has been the priority of the animal "rights" movement since the early 1800s, animal oppression has grown exponentially since that time.  Animal oppression has only been reinforced because reforms make the speciesist system more efficient and they create the illusion that animal suffering is being dealt with. Welfare measures shape the public imagination about Nonhuman Animal use.

Welfarism does not work, but advocates pull on science to legitimize their ineffectual approach.  For instance, Nick Cooney presented his charade of social psychology to the Animal Rights Conference in 2012, titling it "The Facts" (worryingly, this is the same title he gave to his now removed public response to accusations of sexually assaulting a woman).  This framework is important. Science is often drawn upon to bring legitimacy to policies, behaviors, decisions, etc.  Once you can show that science is on your side--your position becomes legitimate, right, and, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Actually, Cooney's claims stand on shaky ground.  They would make anyone professionally trained in social science cringe.

Science is supposed to advance our society by challenging taken for granted assumptions and ignorances that impede us. Welfarists simply pull on the authority of science without the substance to back it up.  Instead of moving us forward, welfarists use science to support the status quo. It is also used to obscure ulterior motives (welfare reform may not liberate animals, but it generates a lot of fundraising).  Think about it--if global animal oppression is on the increase and non-profits have failed to make meaningful change, how could we really be expected to believe that the science backs up non-profit tactics? If the science of non-profiteering worked, we should have seen some progress by now.  The evidence is in:  Nonhuman Animal oppression is skyrocketing, as is the wealth of HSUS, PETA, Farm Sanctuary, and other non-profits.

Importantly, Cooney has no advanced degree in Social Psychology. Melanie Joy, another popular social psychologist activist, has a PhD from an obscure, poorly ranked graduate institution and is an adjunct professor with no scientific publications. She and Cooney each operate a welfarist organization that depends heavily on skewed science to protect reformist goals and fundraising sources.  Neither she or Cooney, our two most prominent authors in vegan social psychology, have published with an academic press (which requires peer-review and scientific rigor).  Despite lacking sufficient credentials, these are the people who are defining the "science" for us. My intention is not to be mean, but rather to encourage readers to be skeptical of the assumptions we have about credibility in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement.

I invite you to check out my essay with Chickpea Magazine where I reimagine how social psychology might be applied in ways that works in the interest of Nonhuman Animals, not non-profit organizations and their staff.  As you navigate the contentious space of animal activism, be aware of how science is socially constructed.  Science is supposed to be objective and value-free, but this is never the case. Science is political.

What the IJC Whaling Ruling & Social Media Response Tell Us about Racism and Western Imperialism

By Stevie Lynne

TRIGGER WARNING:  This post discusses racism and includes racist and racially insensitive screengrabs.

Before we get this post under way, I want to make it absolutely clear that from my perspective I would prefer that no nonhuman animal be exploited or die unnecessarily. However, morality is rarely that straight forward and there are other things I like to take into account before deciding whether or not a campaign or an outcome is really the boon it seems to be on first glance.

Australia took Japan to the International Court of Justice to challenge its claims of whaling for scientific research. The ICJ has recently handed down their verdict (12-4) that the current Japanese whaling research conducted in the Southern Ocean is unscientific and must cease immediately under the International Whaling Convention.

Amongst the cheer and uproar of my Facebook friends, I have my serious misgivings about the ruling, not for the nonhuman animals but for the hints of imperialism and racism that seems deeply embedded in the pursuit of this case and its outcome.

I was watching the news unfold on the Australian public funded news channel, ABC News’ Facebook page. It’s pretty safe to say that the majority of individuals responding to this news are not vegan.

Part of the reason I think that the anti-whaling movement has so much popular currency in Australia is precisely because it attacks a non-white other.

Johanna over on the Vegans Of Color blog posted an excellent blogpost about U.S. vegans attacking other countries and other cultures. She writes:

...we in the West feel it’s our high-and-mighty duty to go & tell other countries, with which we have had an adversarial & racist relationship, what to do. Instead of listening to local activists & supporting them if & when they request it (& in the manner they request), US activists love to barge in, without thought to cultural context or self-determination & autonomy for folks in the countries they’re honing in on. (& yeah, go figure, the whole exotification thing makes it a lot easier to point fingers at OMG those weird savage people!)

This racist elements of the IJC decision were highlighted with people wishing harm against Japan if they broke the ruling. One person had the audacity to use a racial slur for Japanese people as well other disgusting and dehumanising language in his comment. I reported it to Facebook and they removed the comment.

Japanese Responses

Some Japanese individuals jumped on this discussion thread to show their support of the decision.

However, other Japanese individuals were less enthused.

Katsuyoshi Kanahashi’s response shows further issues of classism as well as imperialism present in the debate. 

Even on this one English language thread, Japanese people are shown not to be homogenous and have a diversity of views.

Japanese newspaper The Japan Times, which is published in both English and Japanese, ran an editorial on the ICJ decision. But one thing which struck me as significant was the following paragraph which neatly surmises issues of Western imperialism as well as violence used against the Japanese in pursuit of this imperialism:

Opposition to whaling on environmental or animal welfare grounds has often been viewed in Japan as an attempt to impose Western values in disregard of Japan’s whaling and culinary traditions. In recent years, Japanese whaling operations have been severely hampered by radical environmentalists’ violent sabotage activities.

This should jar with animal advocates. On the one hand we are trying to end the oppression of nonhuman animals, on the other, we are perpetuating an oppressive ideology backed by racism and fueled by violence.

Japan’s Whaling and Indigenous Hunting Practices

We see similar outrage and obsessions in Australia over Indigenous hunting practises. As if to underscore the way in which opposition to whaling and opposition to Indigenous hunting are linked, commenters responding to the ABC’s Facebook post showed how they thought the issues were very much intertwined.

These comments came as a surprise to an Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander identified individual who wrote:

For many of the commenters, their racist attitudes seem to extend not just to the Japanese, but also to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

We Can Do Better

It’s easy to see that growing up in a racist, imperialist society can mar the Animal Rights movement. When I first went vegan, I held onto my own white, racist, imperialist ideologies. But I see that like animal oppression, just because everyone around me is doing it, just because it is sanctioned by institutions and my government, doesn’t make racism and Western imperialism okay to participate in.

Stevie Lynne co-hosts Team Earthling Vegan Radio, a weekly Australian podcast.

See also from this blog:  

Everyday Vegan Racism:  Live Sushi

On Moral Relativism, Post-Racism, and Animal Liberation
Animal Rights and the Indigenous Fixation