Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Animal Rights: A model for insurrection or single issue, intolerant fanatics? (AntiClockWise #13, 1991)

[This piece from 1991 on animal rights was really playing Devil's Advocate as I was much more involved in the animal rights movement than I acknowledged at the time, and still had better not got into too much detail about! :-)]


The animal rights movement intrigues me. Most of my friends are, to a greater or lesser extent, involved in some way, although I am not particularly. I am quite happy with the concept of “If you like animals, don’t eat them”, but beyond this my reservations are somewhat deeper.

On the face of it, the concern for animals presents an admirable spectrum of levels of opposition, from the general base of interest in animal welfare to the direct action of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). 


All age groups can participate in animal rights campaigns and there are a variety of specific issues within the movement for the prospective activist to choose from e.g. looking after strays, save the whales, the fur trade, the meat industry, vivisection etc. … in fact, a veritable supermarket of tasty morsels to choose from (vegan morsels, of course!) rather like the choices facing the young rebel looking for an outlet for his/her opposition to society. The level of activity is also optional, from sending money to a campaign, joining a local group, picketing a particular establishment, spending your entire ‘free’ time in the service of animals, hunt sabotaging to bombing fur shops.

The latter is usually carried out by (fairly) tightly knit cells of individuals who have become frustrated at the more mundane efforts bearing little fruit. The ALF are the most effective direct action group in England today. Their professed aim is to ‘persuade’ individuals and organisations to stop abusing animals by economic sabotage of their property. As property if more important than life to these people involved in animal abuse, this is a pretty good tactic and it also reduces the likelihood of public opinion uniting against the activists, as has happened with other groups who have attacked people. The ALF have had some success in closing down fur shops, laboratories etc. and exposing what is actually going on, but have brought on themselves heavy police harassment and hundreds of activists imprisoned .

However, waging a campaign of economic sabotage brings risks of an escalation, with ordinary people being injured. Fringes of the animal liberation movement have suggested that scientists, hunters etc. are legitimate targets in the greater struggle for animal rights. This will only disintegrate the animal rights movement because the whole principle of equality of animal rights with human rights will become an obviously nonsensical proposition. Those people concerned with animal welfare, rather than rights or liberation, will be alienated. The argument that there can be no human liberation without animal liberation works the same the other way round. Any notion that the rights of animals are more important than those of humans is bound to disappear up its own arse due to total irrationality.

More damning is the glamour associated with the ALF, which can be seen as an arrogant escalation of their specific struggle by a handful of people intent on proving their compassion is so much greater than others. Like the Red Army Faction and their ilk, the ALF is a glamorous role for young people – the chance to put on your paramilitary gear and go careering through the countryside to break into a pharmaceutical lab. Hey, why don’t they just join the Territorial Army? More causes to fight for, a bit more self-sacrifice. Some, by no means all, partake in this for the kicks, Gee, it’s cool being a ‘terrorist’. It would be intriguing to see how many of the ALF are young anarchists, and of those how many will turn their backs on it all when their youth is gone … more wacky young rebels that the SWP missed. The most offensive thing about liberationist glamour is that much of the barbaric torture of animals is for the beauty industry, with its own blatant glamour.

Of course, the majority of the ALF and the general animal rights movement are genuinely concerned individuals who are quite rightly horrified at the abuse of animals in this so-called civilised hi-tech society. However, the alarming thing about the animal rights movement is the lack of tolerance and the astonishing efforts at ‘right-on’ ness it’s proponents go to. From checking the ingredients of food products to boring anyone willing to listen (usually other animal rights activists) with the fact that a certain company making herbal tea is part of a larger company whose sister company is part of another that makes yoghurt! The smug arrogance makes me sick. It is surely no coincidence that animal rights people form their own communities, shunning and being shunned by the rest of society.

Taking the moral high ground is an attempt to distance themselves from something that they do not like, a particularly nasty feature of society, alienating themselves from the problem, and the solution of a destruction of society and its dominant speciesist culture. The thing that annoys me is the way many activists seem more intent on establishing their own purity, and nauseating Victorian-style morality, than explaining to the rest of society that there is no need to eat meat, vivisect or hunt animals. They are beyond reproach; discussion of the basis of animal rights outside the movement is rare and if questioned by outsiders is ridiculed or abused.


In the end, of course, all their efforts are wasted because a single issue can never succeed – only an assault on the totality can bring down the spectre of capitalism which pulls the strings of specific abuses. The animal rights movement is deceiving itself if it thinks a few victories, such as shutting down a fur shop, are pretty cool. Society is having a good laugh; the powers that be are quite happy to have thousands of potential trouble-causers focusing on one particular obscenity in an obscene world – at least it stops them from having time to look beyond this particular oppression to the root cause of it all. The animal rights direct action is merely turned into a part of the spectacle of oppression for the rest of us to passively observe – if the army doesn’t blow you up, the terrorists will. The fact that the ALF is not terrorist or out to get ordinary civilians is irrelevant because the image is established that they are. Army or ALF; in Semtex we trust! In the final scenario, the animal rights movement seeks an end to animal abuse, invariably from legislation from the very people who inflicted the injustice in the first place … a very worthy cause for many will have its bite removed by reform; a sad and predictable end to a movement that has interesting possibilities.


No comments:

Post a Comment