A step in the wrong direction: A reply to Singer & Friedrich

by Ben Payne

This article is in response to ‘The Longest Journey Begins With a Single Step: Promoting Animal Rights by Promoting Reform’ by Peter Singer and Bruce Friedrich and published in the September issue of Satya magazine.

The movement for animal rights is approaching a schism. This division, however, is not one over what moral views to accept but over the path we tread to bring about this change. In their article ‘The Longest Journey Begins With a Single Step: Promoting Animal Rights by Promoting Reform’ published in the September issue of Satya magazine, Peter Singer and Bruce Friedrich highlight what they call the ‘odd controversy’ over what those on the side of welfarism see as demanding the impossible. Singer and Friedrich argue that welfare reform in animal agribusiness, not unrealistic abolitionism, is the best way to confront the customs of society and form the necessary first step towards liberation for nonhuman animals. Abolitionism, they claim, is ‘counterproductive to the goal of animal liberation that we all share’ and ignorant of ‘the vast suffering of…billions of animals for some hypothetical future goal’

The view of abolitionism Singer and Friedrich present is unfortunately the misconception most common among those who perceive larger cages and more effective slaughter methods to be the incremental change we need. Abolitionism, they say, is too much too soon; a naïve ideal unrealisable in a practical form of activism. Much more reasonable to make some concessions, put our seal of approval on the latest Wholefoods cut, and become well versed in the arguments supporting the most humane pig enclosure. Not only do these campaigns seem achievable, but they don’t offend the societal prejudices and customs of the average consumer. And that is exactly where welfarism fails: in the minds of people whose views we are trying to change.

Animal rights is a radical movement in the truest sense, challenging the attitudes of society not just objecting to their practices. It is not enough to nicely ask for the end of the slaughterhouse as the initial step, we must first tackle our own discrimination against animals and insist others do the same. Valuing nonhumans as persons and not as property requires a drastic reconsideration of how we see them, ourselves, and our lifestyles. Rights for animals means respect for animals, and recognition of such will not come through compromising our position to accommodate accepted standards of animal treatment, but by uniting against it and promoting the alternative.

Approving welfarism does nothing more than promote the current status of nonhumans as resources available for our exploitation: things not beings. Singer and Friedrich claim ‘the philosophical argument granting chickens freedom from battery cages also logically demands that we cease to exploit them for our own ends’. While those with a complete knowledge of animal liberationist philosophy may be able to fabricate a link between the two, those in the wider community find it difficult to comprehend. When we focus on the cruelty and not the exploitation of the animal industry we disadvantage the whole animal rights movement. The public comes away confused and misinformed about what we are demanding, and consequentially we loose support. Singer and Friedrich’s claim that ‘the vast majority of people, if they care about animals, will support incremental improvements, even if the increments do not liberate the animals’ is true. This approach however also circumvents the case for animal rights completely. Welfarist developments in recent years have shown that consumers care about the production of their food, but it is not directly connected to the status of animals themselves. Singer and Friedrich underestimate how engrained the property status of nonhumans is in the fabric of our culture, and are only treading the well worn path of traditional animal welfare with little modification. The activism of animal rights must reflect the ideology of animal rights if we are to make any headway in educating for change. Having animal organisations, governmental reports, or the largest animal corporations in the world accepting that animals suffer will not, as Singer and Friedrich suggest, spark the rethinking of animal property that is needed for liberation, but can only reassure consumers that their established beliefs are rational. Questioning of such ideas will not come from corporate or governmental channels built around the economic exploitation of other species, but through grassroots social education and re-evaluation. The changes and publicity advocated by Singer and Friedrich do not push the real issue of animal rights into the public eye, but instead divert it to technical debates over preferential animal use between activists and industry. No fundamental reassessment is needed because it’s no longer being demanded.

Singer and Friedrich argue that changes in conditions for battery hens, pigs, apes, and other animals will result in a greater respect for their interests, claiming once it is realised ‘that certain things are not okay, the view of animals in society will change, and bigger changes become possible’. The public approach to the interests of nonhuman animals, however, will only change as the property status of animals is confronted and reconsidered. Sweeping the principal origin of animal abuse under the mat and highlighting the improvements achieved through legislation and petition serve little role in bringing about a new way of thinking about nonhumans

Abolition is a process, not just a goal. When we educate minds we improve conditions for all animals, building the foundations of a genuine animal rights movement. The activist who fights for animals fights for moral change, not for continued subjugation. Singer and Friedrich seem to reflect the standard belief that the choice between welfarist reform and abolitionist change is a choice between improvements and idealism. Unlike welfarism however, the differences made by abolitionist activism are not glossing over the issues but bringing them to the fore, making clear the problem at the heart of all animal use.

Singer and Friedrich state that ‘if society says that animals have no rights or interests at all, moving from that mentality to complete liberation will be impossible.’ But abolitionism does not maintain that a change in attitudes towards animals must occur overnight, and it cannot be doubted that the movement towards abolition is a slow progression. Educating about rights requires that we maintain the argument for those rights consistently and continuously. Diluting our message to pander to current beliefs will not bring the issue of animal rights to the forefront, but serves little purpose other than to cement those views as tolerable. Not only does welfare reform perform this function, but it also establishes these prejudices in the legal system which dictates the treatment of billions of animals annually.

Meaningful change, in any form, takes time. This, unfortunately, is also the source of the most detrimental force in animal rights activism: impatience. Welfare reform, along with violence, is the expression of frustration with what seems to be little progress. Overwhelmed by the enormity of moving society towards accepting the rights of animals, activists turn to what appear to be small victories, improving conditions instead of addressing the underlying problem. Education and realisation, individual by individual, is the most powerful and disabling method we have against the commoditisation of animals. By making the public aware of animal exploitation and the reasons for supporting animal rights we show how people can make a difference through taking responsibility for our lifestyles and our choices. Abolitionist activism is change where it is needed most: in the worldviews of consumers.

Incremental change that sows the seed for future abolition is what is required, not change that ensures continued exploitation. Singer and Friedrich claim they ‘understand the appeal of battle cries’, but still they fail to see how welfarist reform does nothing to face the true issues behind the traditions, but simply ensures that the use and abuse of animals will exist into the future. Abolitionism, however, returns to the original basis of animal rights and maintains the struggle towards ending speciesism in practical and understandable ways. That is what real activism is, and that is a step in the right direction

Ben Payne is a writer and animal rights activist from Launceston, Tasmania.