Post-Speciesism and the Commodification of Animal Rights: Aldi's "Love Ireland" Campaign

I'm living in Cork, Ireland for the semester and have been exploring new stores, new vegan food, and new ways of advertising food products. Something I quickly noticed was the "Produced in Ireland" labeling scheme. The "Love Ireland" campaign seeks to challenge globalized food production, an environmentally taxing process that outsources agricultural work, threatens the state in creating a dependency on outsiders, and strains the local economy with job loss and import costs. Localizing food is an important form of resistance to this process. Local produce may cost more, though, in a globalized world. To counter this, advertising campaigns seek to reframe local food as patriotic, moral and familial, and ethical.  

At Aldi, I came across a full color booklet provided to customers that pulls on Irish nationalism and nostalgia for the past to push Irish-made food.  Certain themes repeat to frame "Love Ireland" products as an ethical choice and a political action: green pastures, families, and happy animals. Unfortunately, in a speciesist world where Nonhuman Animals and their products are still considered "food," Nonhuman Animal rights has become a commodity. 

If we conduct an informal content analysis of the Aldi brochure, we can see how animal welfare is carefully constructed to encourage purchasing and to increase production.  This is an important counter to the belief that working to improve welfare will move society towards the abolition of speciesism. Nonhuman Animal rights groups promote reforms as easy victories, but in doing so, they create problematic alliances with industry to reach "compromises" that are often framed as economic incentives. Commodifying animal rights works to entrench speciesism by facilitating a "post-specisism" ideology. The public is made to believe that animal rights have been achieved through careful media campaigns that create a false challenge to systemic discrimination against other animals. In a "post-speciesist" world, few would openly admit to wanting animals to suffer and most believe themselves to be "animal lovers." This false ideology obscures structural oppression, thus protecting and perpetuating it.

Starting with the cover, we see a dairy cow identified as "Daisy the dairy cow," though it is clear that her real "name" is 0722. Naming her on the brochure implies that she is individualized and treated as a person with interests, though she was pulled from her mother at a young age, repeatedly raped, had her own babies taken from her, and will end up as hamburger before she reaches adulthood. Indeed, she was probably dead before her picture hit Aldi stores.

Meet the Loughnanes, who produce Irish "pork" in a fashion that has been "handed down through four generations of Loughnane family butchers," with all of their "ingredients" sourced in Ireland. Rhetoric of family, tradition, and heritage implies that buying pig flesh under the "Love Ireland" label is an ethical action. This framework obscures systemic violence, but also increases it.  Brendan O'Reilly's "100% Irish" "free range eggs" come from birds who are "free to roam" and are "happier hens because of it." Aldi's program has helped him to "reach a much bigger market."

Callan Bacon Ltd., a family using "traditional" curing methods on their "humble premises," have been butchers for four generations as well. Aldi's program has increased their staff to almost 200 in the past five years.

The Town of Monaghan's "small indigenous fresh dairy produce manufacturer" "depends on the support of retailers" to get their products to consumers, and Aldi's support has helped them to establish their presence in the marketplace.

The Grady family dairy employs 140 people in their cow exploitation farms: "Aldi's support has contributed to our ability to maintain our long tradition [,,,]"

Killower Farm claims: "Happier cows. Tastier yogurt." People pay for "tastier yogurt," but they are also paying for the fantasy of "happy cows":  "Their cows enjoy a lifestyle that involves clean air, lots of fresh grass and a gentle routine. [...]  The cows enjoy their routine and will even appear at the gate to be milked if the Farm Manager, Sean, is running late!" One is left to wonder if they line up to be raped and slaughtered as well.  Sadly, this false claimsmaking works: "As a result of working with Aldi we have been able to employ extra people on our farm in Enniscorthy."

At this "free range" family chicken farm, producers report: "Demand from Aldi for our products has helped secure our family farm income and also provides employment to several local poultry industry services in Limerick." 

Irish Country Meats, a "lamb supplier," ensures readers that Aldi's lambs are, "predominantly reared outdoors, grazing freely on Irish pastures. These are the ideal conditions for raising lamb and result in fresh meat that is not only lean and nutritious, but totally natural too."

ABP "beef suppliers" have also reported remarkable growth since working with Aldi. They now work with a network of over 35,000 farmers, spending over 450 million euros each year in the "acquisition of cattle" and staff employment.

Welfare "reform" and local food initiatives are not moving us towards abolition; they are facilitating a false ideology of post-speciesism and make the industry more viable. It paints an inherently violent industry as a patriotic, family-centered, traditional, and ethical industry. 

The Social Psychology of Speciesism Lecture Series

For those new to social psychology, I've published an introductory four part hour long lecture on the science of human-nonhuman relationships. In the first lecture, I make a case for the inclusion of Nonhuman Animal issues in the social sciences. In the second lecture, I cover a few important social psychological concepts that help explain institutionalized violence against animals. In the final piece, I criticize the use of other animals as research subjects in the discipline.

Lecture 1: Social Psychology of Human & Nonhuman Relationships (Part 1) 

Exploring how social psychology relates to nonhuman species and the role of human supremacy in otherizing nonhuman species.

Lecture 1: Social Psychology of Human & Nonhuman Relationships (Part 2) 

Lecture 2: The Social Psychology of Speciesism 

Exploring various theories of social psychology to explain the institutionalized violence against other animals.

Lecture 3: Animal Research in Social Psychology 

Exploring the ethical problems with using animals in social psychologial experimentation, highlighting prominent research, and suggesting alternatives.

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.