Gendering Animal Exploitation

Particularly concerned with women's rights and representations, I found Dunayer's essay compelling as he compares the implications of sexism to Speciesism. Many "Feminists have been acutely aware of connotation, arguing that many terms denoting women come, over time, to take on negative connotations, especially sexual"(Gibbon 25). Dunayer explains that these types of metaphors impose a negative image of both women and nonhuman animals. Similar to Dunayer's views, author Carol J. Adams explains the patriarchal culture's authorization of eating animals. The oppression of women and other animals are overtly interdependent and meat has become a symbol for the patriarchal control of animals. 

Pop singer Lady Gaga justifies her outfit as a criticism against patriarchal
stereotypes claiming she is "not a piece of meat". 

I'll admit, like most people I thought this criticism of patriarchal language was rather trivial. However, every instance of this linguistic practice brings us one step closer to an oppressive state. As long as specisism has existed, patriarchy has similarly been entrenched in society. Early practices of both ideologies enforced human supremacy and patriarchal lifestyles. As men have become more politically dominant, it has become difficult for women to exercise political power over the language and discourse of today's society. The reasoning behind such language suggests that "Patriarchal men would not have linguistically appropriated humanness unless it represented superiority and privilege to their speciesist minds" (591). Apart from language, patriarchy and speciesism have also been applied in the utilitarian framework. Man's excuse for animal dominance is that the exploitation is key for the survival of the greater good of humanity. But "however one interprets it, whatever practical, technical, scientific, juridical, ethical, or political consequence one draws from it, no one can deny this event any more, no one can deny the unprecedented proportions of this subjection of the animal" (599). At an early period of human civilization, meat has been a valuable economic commodity; those who controlled this commodity achieved power. Affluent families hunted and dined with massive amounts of meat, whereas poorer or lesser off communities would rely on vegetables for sustenance. Our conquest of meat and "This reduction of the animals, which has a theoretical as well as economic history is part of the same process as that by which men have been reduced to isolated productive and consuming units" (606). Feminist could argue that to remove meat is to threaten the structure of the larger patriarchal culture.

Gibbon 1999 (Margaret, Professor at the School of Applied Language and Intercultural Studies, Dublin City University, “Feminist Perspectives on Language, Pg. 25-26)

We need factories of death; we need factory animals.

            Although Elizabeth Costello is portrayed as a feeble aged woman, she remains strong and passionate by defending animals rights and her philosophy. Similar to Costello, Kafta stands before an academic audience speaking on behalf of his passion. Kafta says, “For the Academy it will not provide anything essentially new and will fall far short of what people have asked of me and what with the best will I cannot speak about- but nonetheless it should demonstrate the line by which someone who was an ape was forced into the world of men and which he continued there” (558). Both Kafta and Costello might feel otherized from the Academy but nevertheless they express their unique beliefs. Costello is aware of the dissent surrounding her beliefs yet it does not seem to influence her. In fact, Costello’s own daughter in-law disagrees saying “I find her philosophizing rather difficult to take” (91). She continues to say, “Respect for everyone’s world view, the cow’s world view, the squirrel’s world view, and so forth. In the end it leads to total intellectual paralysis” (92).

            Along with many other people, Norma questions Costello’s speeches, which attempt to move towards biocentrism. During Costello’s lecture, she alludes to Ted Hughes’ poem called ‘The Jaguar”. Costello explains that the poem brings record of an interaction or engagement with the jaguar saying, “His stride is wildernesses of freedom: The world rolls under the long thrust of his heel” (568).  Furthermore she suggests that this personification diverts from the connection from animals and humans, and looks only in the abstract. Costello continues to explain that this artificial connection assumes animals act through the individual. However, man is the only species that can act and think so individualistically- for the sake of our ecosystem. She also criticizes society for the exploitation and commodification of animals. Costello explains that in order to satisfy our desires “we need factories of death; we need factory animals” (97).  This type of dehumanization is also analogous to the Holocaust. Jewish philosopher Adorno defends such comparison saying, “Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they’re only animals” (570).  

The Philosophers and the Animals

"We can only have one death of our own; we can comprehend the deaths of others only one at a time.  In the abstract, we may be able to count to a million, but we cannot count to a million deaths" (63). 


"It is a philosophical language in which we can discuss and debate what kind of souls animals have, whether they reason or on the contrary as biological automatons, whether they have rights in respect of us or whether we merely have duties in respect of them" (66).


"At the beginning of "The Poets and the Animals" we are offered the quet anger of a poet who objects to Elizabeth Costello's analogy between the murdered Jews of Europe and slaughtered cattle" (509). 


Elizabeth Costello, an aging somber women, speaks on behalf of the silenced animals who have been slaughtered and killed for human's desire. Although she is depicted as frail and weak, Coetzee emphasizes her power and fervor when lecturing at the university. In fact, Costello is so ardent about her position that "At the beginning of "The Poets and the Animals" we are offered the quet anger of a poet who objects to Elizabeth Costello's analogy between the murdered Jews of Europe and slaughtered cattle" (509). To entice the audience, Costello compares the killing of animals to a genocides saying, We can only have one death of our own; we can comprehend the deaths of others only one at a time.  In the abstract, we may be able to count to a million, but we cannot count to a million deaths" (63). With this said, many argued Costello undercut or devalued the Holocaust. However, if anything, Costello reveals that this ongoing violence is present even today. Many animal liberationist made this comparision in terms of the violence, destruction and dehumanization both have caused. Similar to the Agricultural industry's practices, Nazi German inflicted similar pain on innocent citizens. During this period, "Some Jews' skins were preserved by Nazis for example, to be used for lampshades. Obviously, animals are themselves skinned for furs, feathers, and leather" (538). 

Just as the conquest over animals is defined as Speciesism, Nazism was solely fueled on biological racism and anti-semitism. Those who oppose this comparison argue it's moral intentions against victims of the Holocaust. But I think Costello's speech and her analogy was justified to shed light on such an alarming issue. Rather than taking offense to such a claim, we must acknowledge the magnitude of animal abuse in today's society. Rather exhibiting denial, Costello's comparison forces us to remember and acknowledge our injustices. 

Earthlings Part II

"The time has come for each of us to reconsider our eating habits,

our traditions, our lifestyles and fashions, and above all,

our way of thinking."

While watching the second portion of this film, my main concern was looking for a solution to the problem. After seeing each heart aching scene, I desperately hoped for some sort of solution or alternative to the status quo's dehumanization. Although Earthlings does not necessarily provide a step-by-step process for animal abuse, it sought a more ideological shift away from instances of Specism. The film urges that "The time has come for each of us to reconsider our eating habits, our traditions, our lifestyles and fashions, and above all, our way of thinking." Rather than taking a radical stance, I think the film proposes a gradual shift away from what our accepted norm. Because the consumption and commodification of animals has been so deeply rooted in society's culture, rethinking of our ways seems most appropriate. 

We must question our ethics when it comes to
the commodification of animals.

In addition to this rejection, another plausible solution is through questioning the state in matters of animals rights and protection. Organizations such as the Animal Liberation Movement seeks legal action towards the emancipation of fellow earthlings. The ALM seeks an end to the moral and legal distinction drawn between man and animal, an end to the exploitation, and an end to their use in the research, food, clothing, and entertainment industries. Legally speaking, Liberationists criticize The U.S Department of Agriculture for enforcing stricter laws in the status of animals as property. 

Personally, I find that taking a firm stance against animal abuse is the only way to ignite change. So in addition to instigating an ideological shift, we must challenge the authorities who allow such atrocities. 

Psychoanalysis of Sadism

Sadism and the human psychology is heavily
linked to animal abuse.

For years, psychologist have searched for the underlying motives for those who abuse animals. Concerns have risen that "In addition to growing sensitivity to the rights of animals, another significant reason for the increased attention to animal cruelty is a mounting body of evidence about the link between acts and serious crimes of more narrowly human concern child abuse, rape, and homicide" (497). Research has shown that these acts are conducive to sadist behavior. Sadism, is the "Enthusiasm for inflicting pain, suffering or humiliation on others; spec. a psychological disorder characterized by sexual fantasies, urges, or behavior involving the subject of another person to pain, humiliation, bondage, etc." (485). There is growing empirical evidence for the connection between animal abuse and sadist violence. In Hogarth's The Four Stages of Cruelty boy's who are portrayed innocent are, "Conspicuous in the center of the plate, he is shown being assisted by other boys to insert an arrow into a dog's rectum"(492). As grotesque as these scenes are, they reveal the disturbing tendencies of the human psychology. Those who study psychopathy conclude that sadism is strongly suggestive that the sadist carries the desire to control and dominate their objects. During the process, the emotional detachment from people or animals allows them to dehumanize the subjects.  This form of aggressive behavior has taken a sharp affect on animals in all industries and aspects. Unfortunately, man's attempt for dominance has resulted in thousands of animals to be tortured, killed, and slaughtered. Not only do I empathize for the innocent lives lost but also for the those who experience such disturbing feelings.

The story of Tom Nero reveals the
motives behind sadist and animal torturers.

Earthlings Part I

"Though among the members of the human family we recognize the moral imperative of respect (every human is a somebody,not a something), morally disrespectful treatment occurs when those who stand at the power end of a power relationship treat the less powerful as if they were mere objects."

Francis Bacon's "Painting" depicts beef carcasses hanging as an
allusion to the massive killings during the holocaust

As disturbing and grotesque the film Earthlings was, I think it was imperative that we unveil the truth as to what atrocities humans commit against other species. The most compelling aspect of this documentary was the relation to humans and their desire for power and conquer over the weak. The film explains that, "though among the members of the human family we recognize the moral imperative of respect (every human is somebody, not a something) morally disrespectful treatment occurs when those who stand at the power end of a power relationship the less powerful as if they were mere objects". The film suggests that the ongoing slaughter of animals could be compared to the Holocaust in 1933. We often considering preying on the weak as a barbaric action, but Earthlings reveals how this marginalized hierarchy is present in every aspect of our lives. Science, recreation, and agriculture are just a few fields where we have exploited animals for anthropocentric gain. There comes a point in time where we must draw a  line for what is ethical and what is not. If holocaust was deemed one of the greatest acts of inhumanity on this world, what makes this any different? Similar to animal testing, the Nazis would conduct brutal experiments on innocent Jews under the justification for science. Dr. Josef Mengele, known as the doctor of death, was highly known for his brutal experiments, specifically on children. Being brought up in this society, we have learned that these past actions were both extremely unethical and barbaric to the human race. Yet, the slaughter of thousands of animals is never contested. This supports the idea that we as humans desire the ability to exercise our power in sometimes inhumane ways. As the quote explains, it is easy for us to commit to our moral imperatives when it is in respect to our equals. But in some instances, we try to create a marginal distinction through imposing power, authority, and coercion. 

German Nazis were responsible for some of the greatest inhumane
acts committed to a group of people. How are they different from
animal abusers?

Vivisection

“No greater service can be rendered to the cause of truth, in this fiercely contested field, than to reduce these shadowy, impalpable phantoms into definite forms, which can be seen, which can be grappled with, and which, when once fairly laid, we shall not need to exorcise a second time” 463.

“Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection questioned the religious justifications for human elitism” (474).

The Tea Party displays both humans and animals coexisting

As all great writers seek to uncover the truth, Lewis Carroll similarly presented fallacies in the justification of vivisection. Carroll found this most critical as, “No greater service can be rendered to the cause of truth, in this fiercely contested field, than to reduce these shadowy, impalpable phantoms into definite forms, which can be seen, which can be grappled with, and which, when once fairly laid, we shall not need to exorcise a second time” 463. While Carroll does refute pro-vivisectionist arguments, he does not however, offer a solution or alternative to the problem. We may live in a society with a grotesque practice, but what good is uncovering the truth if we do nothing to stop it? Only can true service be appreciated when we find solutions, take actions, and seek retaliation. Maybe the purpose of Carroll’s essay was to spark ideological change in his readers, but he should suggest what type of action is needed in order to stop animal injustice. Similarly, the essay The Rational Animal presents our anthropocentricism saying that “Humans view themselves as the elite species on he planet”, but there is little evidence as to why humans feel that such actions are ethically acceptable (474). The acceptance of vivisection is so appalling, there must be some underlying psychological issue that we must undercover. Why do humans deem it acceptable to torment fellow earthlings? Why would things like religion perpetuate the idea of specism? And finally, how can we change this? All these pressing questions must be answered in order for humans to acknowledge the genocide they have allowed for so many years. 

Darwin questions the implications of evolution and natural selection.

Critique of Alice Essays

While reading both essays, I truly appreciated the insightful findings both Daniel and Professor Bump had to offer. However, I did notice a few discrepancies. The first essay introduces the personification of animals  and their thematic significance to Alice. Although Alice is sometimes harsh to the creatures, I would disagree that she is an overall anthropocentric protagonist. Daniel suggests that "This seems to highlight Carroll's underlying theme within Alice's journey; Alice must learn to empathize with those who are different from her in order to grow up" (444). However, Alice's attitude may be a result of her homesickness. It is suggested, that she holds Dinah, her cat, very dear to her. Clearly, Alice does not dichotomize animals but rather, feels anxious about the animals that comfort her. This could be the reason why Alice embraces a "predatory nature".

Alice_Dinah.jpg

In the second essay, it is suggest that "Relationships with other animals in the Alice books are very different. Lovell-Smith has shown that these animals are not only allegories and allusions to people and ideas but also representatives of their species in nature, "objects of contemporary scientific observation and description" (451).  But more than allusions to people, the animals represent stages in Alice's life that she may experience. The white rabbit represents the anxiety Alice will encounter in adulthood. The Chesire cat alludes to her crisis searching for a self-identity. Both essays seem to suggest there are darker undertones to Alice's journey. Although the animals are portrayed as whimsical characters, they reveal much more into the psychology of Alice's journey.

white-rabbit-lepus-timidus-ericailcane.jpg

We are Animals

Prior to writing this, I had just finished dinner at a Mexican restaurant. Reading the animal narratives truly personified the life of the animals. Had I chosen to eat meat for dinner, would I know the story of the once-animal before me? The choice to eat meat has recently been marked by "Disposition to treat human beings and animals with consideration and compassion, and to relieve their distresses; kindness, benevolence=humaneness" (410). Every time I thought of ordering a chicken enchilada I could picture the face of a bird staring right back at me. Im my opinion, this consideration for the treatment of animals breaks down the dichotomization of how we perceive animals. Despite their "inferiority" to humans, we must still treat every earthling with equal benevolence. 

Through the narratives of the dog, we learn that not only do other animals possess a full conscious, but they feel. I think this is most solidified as the narrator describes the obstacles and adversaries she encounters as she leads a pack of dogs. Through the tale, we can imagine the world through the eyes of another earthing. Through this personification, we often feel more sympathy towards the other--- in this case, the dogs. She says, "I am the Alpha and the Homer, but thinks always happen to me, never to Ann, who, despite her gracelessness, has the slippery luck of a fish, and glides or blunders through things untouched" (416). Just like we do, she faces problems in life, has relationships with others, she loves, and she lives. Although we don't understand the emotions of other animals, we must always preserve their wellbeing at the equal threshold of how we would treat another human. We wouldn't lock our kids up in cages, or tie them to a tree for days. Just like any human would, the dogs says, "I was made to experience this world" (420). 

Dichotomize our food

primary defensive of the system is invisibility; invisibility reflects the defenses avoidance and denial and it’s the foundation on which all other mechanisms stand invisibility enables us, for example, to consume beef without envisioning the animal we’re eating; it cloaks our thoughts from ourselves” (366).


“many Americans avoid eating animals that they perceive as cute (rabbits) and instead eat animals that they consider less attractive (turkeys)” (384)

We would never think to eat our dogs. Why don't we feel the same
way about another animal?

Similar to the compassion fatigue we feel towards impoverished children in third-world countries, society has compassion towards certain animals as opposed to others. This dichotomy in the status quo conjures images of “cute” animals vs. edible meat. Most of us support eating meat because it is a human’s natural desire. However, we disregard the torture that goes on in slaughterhouses. When hearing about this torment, our “primary defensive of the system is invisibility; invisibility reflects the defenses avoidance and denial and it’s the foundation on which all other mechanisms stand invisibility enables us, for example, to consume beef without envisioning the animal we’re eating; it cloaks our thoughts from ourselves” (366). Many of us find more sympathy towards puppies and cats than fish or rodents. Although all animals are deserving of the same ethical treatment, we deny some animals. This process of dichotomization develops different associations of different species. For example, “many Americans avoid eating animals that they perceive as cute (rabbits) and instead eat animals that they consider less attractive (turkeys)” (384). 

PETA's campaign

PETA, an organization for animal rights, recently made these similar findings and sought to deconstruct these representations of animals. Some people find less compassion towards food like fish and other seafood because. PETA recently began a campaign to stop the ruthless fishery export. The organization promotes calling fish ‘sea kittens’ to evoke empathy of the killing of fish. This type of rhetoric attempts to break down the dichotomy between animals “worth” saving versus eating.