Copyright 1999 by Michael Cerkowski
INTRODUCTION:
Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions
about people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research, some
of the opponents (often known as "Antis") of the animal rights movement
also have mistaken ideas about AR activists (ARAs) and their goals and
organizations. This document is intended to address those
misapprehensions as fairly as possible.
THE "CULT" OF ANIMAL RIGHTS:
Many Antis view ARAs as near-mindless followers of a few
charismatic leaders and/or texts. They believe that AR dogma is
delivered to activists who then accept and follow it blindly. While
there may be a grain of truth behind this idea, it is on the whole
mistaken for two reasons. First, the AR movement has *no* leaders who
command the obedience, or even the complete agreement, of most ARAs.
Even small AR groups are rife with conflicting opinions and dissent; ask
a group of twenty ARAs a question about a basic tenet of their beliefs
and you will get at least five (and sometimes twenty) different answers.
The same kinds of factionalism and disagreement on
theory and policy that plague grassroots movements in general can be
found throughout the animal rights community. Every movement has people
who lead, people who follow, and people who prefer to think and act as
individuals. ARAs are no
exception.
ANIMAL RIGHTS AS IRRATIONAL RELIGION:
It is tempting to believe that people who think
differently are irrational; that they blindly follow dogma without a
moment's thought to the logical issues raised by their beliefs and
actions. The philosophy of animal rights is based on rational
consideration of the world as humans perceive it, just like many other
schools of thought. While there are some ARAs who prefer to think in
slogans and who never doubt themselves, many of us spend vast amounts of
time considering and reconsidering our positions and the
reasons that underlie them. While some sleep the Sleep Of The Just, many
others lie awake, thinking and worrying. From Peter Singer and Tom Regan
to anonymous student activists, the animal rights movement is as much a
rational undertaking as most other human endeavors. Our conclusions may
be different from the mainstream, but our basic perceptions and
analytical processes are essentially the same.
THE ARA AS LUDDITE:
The opposition of ARAs to the use of animals in medical
and other research is often taken by Antis to be symptomatic of a
general "science phobia." This, along with the frequently expressed
desire for a simpler, more natural lifestyle, leads many Antis to
believe that the animal rights movement rejects science and technology,
and if allowed to implement its goals, will plunge the world back into
disease-ridden squalor. This is not the case. While some ARAs may be
Luddites to some degree, most aren't.
It must also be noted that many true Luddites fully support the
exploitation of animals, albeit in a more traditional manner. There is
no direct link between the two philosophies, any more than there is a
direct link between political Conservatism and anti-government militias.
THE ARA AS CLUELESS URBANITE:
Another common myth about animal rights activists (that
conflicts somewhat with the previously mentioned one) is that we are all
city dwellers, with no real experience of the natural world, and
possessing opinions that are shaped more by the movie "Bambi" than by
reality. Every person, and every movement, has a unique mythology. For
every ARA who believes that hunters are all cruel, mindless brutes,
there is probably a hunter who thinks that (s)he is a carnivore,
complete with fangs for killing. Both groups need to examine our
mythologies.
Many ARAs live in rural areas, and many have direct
experience with wildlife and with nature. Some of us have formal
training in fields like biology and wildlife rehabilitation, and some of
us are even former hunters. The 'city dweller' tag is a double-edged
weapon, as many hunters also live in urban and suburban areas. If a
hunter who drives to a wild area to hunt can be considered a repository
of knowledge about nature, then an ARA who drives to wild areas to hike
and camp deserves the same consideration.
ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCACY AS A LUCRATIVE BUSINESS:
Most of the larger AR organizations use direct mailings,
both to raise funds and to get their message out to the largest possible
number of people. Antis often look at the gross income generated by
these mailings and proclaim that organizations like PETA and HSUS are
'in it for the money.' This view ignores the fact that most of the gross
income from bulk mailings goes to pay for *more* bulk mailings, and that
the actual funds raised are fairly modest. A few million dollars may
seem like a lot, but it is a pittance when compared with the tens to
hundreds of millions of dollars available to groups that are funded by
industries that use animals or manufacture the tools and weapons used in
animal research and hunting. Salaries in AR organizations are typically
quite modest, and most activists are either
completely unpaid, or make poverty-level wages. This is definitely not a
wealthy movement.
A related criticism is that groups that advocate animal
rights spend only a small portion of their available funds to help
animals in shelters or on the streets. This tactic is effective -- until
one realizes that if money is spent on 'band-aid' approaches that don't
attempt to change the status quo, then the status quo will continue, and
more animals will suffer in the long run. Animal welfare groups do a
good job of trying to help animals that are currently suffering. The
mission of animal rights groups is to change society's attitudes about
using animals, in the hope that future suffering will be greatly
reduced. The two approaches are complementary, and AW and AR groups and
activists each benefit from the presence of the other, despite our
disagreements.
THE ARA AS TERRORIST:
Everyone involved in the debate about animal rights is
aware of the existence of the Animal Liberation Front, and of similar
organizations that use destruction of property, and sometimes threats of
violence against people who exploit animals, to achieve their ends. The
media has also widely publicized the tactic, sometimes used by anti-fur
activists, of splashing red paint on fur coats while people are wearing
them. This has led to a general perception of the animal rights activist
as someone who practices, or at
least supports, violence. In fact, the typical ARA does nothing more
menacing than write letters, debate online, or stand in a picket line
holding a placard. Many animal rights activists are also *human* rights
activists who abhor violence against any conscious being. The typical
ARA is more likely to financially support human charities than the ALF.
Even the Animal Liberation Front, while using extreme and controversial
tactics, has expressed a commitment to avoid direct harm to human
beings. ARAs as
a group do not hate children, or people in general, and do not wish to
grant animals more (or even comparable) rights than humans. We simply
believe that animals have the right to be considered as more than a
means to human ends.
ARAs AS ELITISTS:
Animal rights activists are sometimes portrayed as
well-off Weekend Warriors, with no concern for humanity's economic
well-being, and no willingness to endure bodily discomfort or financial
hardship for their cause. There are also regular accusations of
intellectual elitism and disconnection from everyday concerns. Actually,
the typical ARA works full time at a low or mid-level job, is involved
with hands-on animal rescue work or care, and, as previously mentioned,
is deeply concerned with matters of human rights and economic justice in
addition to the issue of animal rights. ARAs are much more likely to be
found in college towns and low-rent districts than in Hollywood or in
expensive suburbs. AR activism as a career does not pay well for the
vast majority of those who work at it professionally, and people who are
activists in addition to holding "real" jobs are the rule, not the
exception.
CONCLUSION:
One of the basic tenets of conflict is "Know thy
opponent." While it may be in the short-term interests of "Antis" to
misrepresent animal rights activists, in the long term they would do
well to learn more about how we really are, as opposed to how we are
sometimes portrayed. Both sides in this debate need to engage in more
genuine dialog, and less demonization.
*** Reproduce freely, but do not modify
Go on to
Animal Altruism
Return to 3 June 2001 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
