💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › subversive-energy-beyond-animal-liberation.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:55:53. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Beyond Animal Liberation
Author: subversive energy
Date: 2012
Language: en
Topics: animal liberation, insurrectionist, insurrection,
Source: Retrieved on May 27, 2012 from http://zinelibrary.info/beyond-animal-liberation

subversive energy

Beyond Animal Liberation

1. Introduction

This is a collection of writings that critique the animal liberation

movement and the corresponding lifestyle choice, veganism. We have spent

extensive time working within the animal liberation movement in North

America and our critique is highly influenced by our personal

experiences. Through study and discussion, we have developed a new

understanding of domination, making this a critique not only of the

animal liberation movement but also of our previous selves and the ways

in which we attempted to deal with animal oppression.

2. Beyond Veganism

In North America, the animal liberation movement puts considerable

emphasis on veganism. While it is not rare for the liberals of a

movement to adopt specific consumer or lifestyle choices (buying fair

trade, recycling, and so on), it is unusual for the ‘radicals’ of these

movements to actively endorse these choices. Taking a quick survey of

some of the individuals considered ‘radical’ animal liberationists, the

North American Animal Liberation Press Officers and Advisors Camille

Marino, Jerry Vlasak, Gary Yourofsky, and Peter Young to name a few, all

claim that veganism is an important part of the animal liberation

movement[1]. Apparently there is something incredibly special about

veganism that distinguishes it from other consumer or lifestyle choices.

In what appeared to be breaking news in the animal liberation movement

in June 2011, Camille Marino announced what anarchists have known for

years – that veganism “does absolutely nothing to relieve animal

suffering.” (Ethical Veganism Doesn’t Help Animals) So if veganism is

not an effective means of combating animal oppression, why all the fuss?

We are more than what we consume

In the quintessential ‘veganarchist’ pamphlet Animal Liberation and

Social Revolution, Brian Dominick explains that, “By my definition, pure

vegetarianism is not veganism. Refusing to consume the products of

non-human animals, while a wonderful life choice, is not in itself

veganism. The vegan bases her choices on a radical understanding of what

animal oppression really is, and her lifestyle choice is highly informed

and politicized”. Many animal liberationists share the perspective that

veganism is more than a consumer choice but a lifestyle choice

representing their morals.

As anarchists, our analysis of the domination of animals involves the

recognition that the distinction between human and nonhuman animals must

be abolished. While this involves developing a “radical understanding of

what animal oppression really is,” we see no reason why this

understanding also requires a vegan diet.

Dominick points out that a radical analysis of animal exploitation must

appreciate that “the meat industry (including dairy, vivisection, etc)

is not an isolated entity. The meat industry will not be destroyed until

market capitalism is destroyed.” He also admits that the items we

purchase harm more than just nonhuman animals (unlike what the

‘cruelty-free’ bunnies on ‘green’ products everywhere would have us

believe), yet he clings to the term veganism and consumptive practices

more generally, stating that “there is a compromise point at which we

can achieve an understanding of the effects of our actions as well as

adjust and refocus our lifestyles accordingly… You are what you

consume.” Anyone with a radical understanding of capitalism recognizes

that ‘ethical consumerism’ does not challenge the exploitation inherent

within the system and the power imbalances it develops. Since “there is

no escape from the massive markets of late capitalism”, Dominick’s

‘compromise point’ is irrelevant – every purchase contributes to the

capitalist system we are bound by and wish to destroy. We certainly hope

that our purchases aren’t an expression of our desires even if we do buy

‘fair trade’, ‘sweatshop-free’, or ‘vegan’, since any society that has a

capitalist mode of production is one we want to dismantle.

It is not specific institutions that maintain dominance over animals

(the meat industry, the vivisection industry, the entertainment

industry, etc.) but a network of institutions (including the state, the

economy, religion, the family, etc.) that dominate us all (human and

nonhuman). This network forces specific social roles upon us, the main

purpose being the perpetuation of this system. One of these roles is

that of consumer, and regardless of how ‘ethical’ the consumption

appears, whenever we make a purchase we accept the consumer-product

relationship. To overcome these social roles we must destroy the system

that creates them and find new ways of relating to one another. In an

attempt to subvert the consumer-product relationship anarchists often

participate in stealing and/or ‘freeganism’, as both undermine the

transfer of resources to the capitalist system. However, the insistence

that veganism is important has animal liberationists encouraging us to

engage in ‘ethical’ consumption, even going so far as ‘Supreme Power

Vegan’ Walter Bond advocating against the supposed speciesist acts of

dumpster diving or stealing animal products. (Supreme Power Vegan) So

rather than actually engage in actions that subvert the capitalist

system (which also happens to be part of the system that dominates

animals), we are encouraged to advance the ‘vegan economy’.

The limited options that capitalism offers cannot even begin to

represent the many ways in which we hope to relate to one another when

we break through the trappings of the current system. And if what we

consume is not an expression of our desires, a person can be against

speciesism without being vegan in the same way that one can be against

industrial civilization while driving a car. ‘Ethical consumerism’

should be left for the liberals.

Why a diet can’t abolish ‘Violence in Everyday Life’

Dominick attempts to describe veganism as more than a mere consumer

choice when he implies that it is part of the process of “challenging

the false wisdom and values we’ve been indoctrinated with.” Dominick

responds to the “abuse of animals – whether directly, as is the case

regarding the mistreatment of pets, or indirectly, as through the

process of meat eating [which] correlates to social violence”, by

advocating the “conscious abstinence from actions which contribute

directly or indirectly, to the suffering of sentient beings.” But this

fails to acknowledge that we are forced into the role of consumer, a

role we cannot fully withdraw from (except by removing ourselves from

industrial civilization completely – an act that is becoming

increasingly difficult). This makes participating in indirect forms of

violence impossible to avoid. Since capitalism is an inherently

exploitative system, whenever we engage in the role of consumer, whether

we are buying meat, vegetables, or shoes, we are participating in social

violence. Refusing to purchase certain products from the capitalist

market does not wipe one’s hands clean of social violence. Of course we

should attempt to develop non-hierarchical relationships with the

animals we are in direct contact with, but the only way to avoid the

indirect social violence we are complicit in is to destroy the system

that forces the consumer-product relationship upon us.

Dominick even attempts to convince us that participating in the indirect

violence of purchasing and consuming animal products will increase the

likelihood of engaging in direct abusive behaviour. “[T]his cause-effect

dynamic works both ways. It has been shown that those who are violent

towards animals – again, directly or indirectly – are also more likely

to be violent towards other humans. People fed a vegetarian diet, for

instance, are typically less violent than those who eat meat. People who

abuse their pets are unlikely to stop there – their children and

partners are often next”. While various researchers have demonstrated

that a link exists between domestic violence and animal abuse[2], we

found no research showing that vegetarianism is even linked to ‘less

violent’ behaviour, let alone demonstrates a cause-effect relationship.

It is absurd to think that the traits fostered by the direct abuser are

also developed within us when we are forced to engage in the role of

consumer.

The revolution starts... in the kitchen?

When Dominick states that, “the role of the revolutionist is simple:

make your life into a miniature model of the alternative, revolutionary

society you envision”, he attempts to make the (naïve) case that

changing ourselves will change the world. “It is we who are the enemy;

overthrowing the oppressors in our heads will be the revolution.”

Although personal transformation is important, referring to ourselves as

the enemy misdirects the rage we should be unleashing on the elites and

institutions of domination.

It is obvious to (almost) everyone that refusing to buy factory-farmed

meat will not create a world without factory farms. While challenging

the oppressive ideas we have been taught and creating new ways of

relating to one another are both important tasks, they are not the only

tasks of the revolutionary. As put by sasha k, “anarchists must attack,

for waiting is defeat.” (Some Notes on Insurrectionary Anarchism) Even

Dominick admits that “the simple act of changing one’s lifestyle, even

when joined by millions of others, cannot change the world, the social

structures of which were handcrafted by elites to serve their own

interests”. The role of the revolutionary is not so simple – it is

essential we engage in daily acts of resistance and attack the

institutions that dominate us all.

The vegan secret to eco-harmony

Dominick tells us that “Radicals need to realize, as vegans do [emphasis

ours], that the only thing we can learn from animals is how to live in a

sane and sound relationship with the environment”. Dominick should be

reminded that the only known examples of individuals living in a sane

and sound relationship with the environment are indigenous cultures. To

pretend that veganism is required to develop a holistic analysis of

human-nature relationships is possibly the most embarrassing of

Dominick’s mistakes. While eating meat may not be a necessary condition

for living in a sane and sound relationship with the environment, we

know for a certainty that one can live eco-harmoniously while consuming

animals.

Moving beyond veganism

Our critique of veganism does not mean we support speciesism, in the

same way that anarchists who critique feminism do not support

patriarchy. Rather, our critique is meant to demonstrate that a radical

understanding of the institutions of domination means moving beyond the

notion that veganism, whether defined as a consumer or lifestyle choice,

is a crucial step in changing our human-animal relationships. Developing

non-hierarchical relationships with animals requires thoughtful

analysis, an attempt to recreate the one-on-one interactions we have

with animals in our daily lives, and acts of resistance against the

system that dominates us all. This obsession with ‘cruelty-free’ living

allows the movement to be co-opted and diverts us from real

revolutionary projects. It is completely ridiculous when Steven Best and

company advocate so strongly for ‘ethical veganism’ and then complain

that “[vegans] are lifestyle oriented and apolitical; we are

consumerist… we care more about our own purity, or the purity of other

vegans, more than we care about the social problems and social

structures.” (Best, Veganism – The War We Cannot Lose) It is Best’s

insistence on the revolutionary potential of veganism that opens the

door for the ‘apolitical’ vegans he claims to hate. The ‘voice of the

voiceless’ Peter Young even refuses to support non-vegetarian prisoners

that have engaged in direct attacks against animal industries,

demonstrating just how obscene this ‘radical’ infatuation with veganism

really is.

We are not denying that there are many subjective reasons for being

vegan, such as a personal aversion to eating meat, feeling healthier as

a vegan, being fearful of contaminated animal products, or feeling that

veganism strengthens your personal understanding of animal exploitation.

But it should be emphasized that veganism is not a radical response to

animal oppression – it can never be more than a lifestyle choice. It is

time for us to abandon the idea that veganism is a revolutionary act and

begin to attack the forces of domination that control us all, human and

nonhuman.

3. Animal Liberation as Liberal Ideology

As individuals who attempt to live in constant struggle against the

system that dominates our entire existence, we have embraced the

insurrectional project of constant revolt against the forces that limit

our freedom. This life project is not based on an image of a future

society and we propose no ideology to define our revolt. This places us

in opposition to leftist forms of struggle (including the animal

liberation movement) who construct an ideology to guide their struggle

and propose a future society with new ‘anti-authoritarian’ morals.

In recent years, the animal liberation movement has developed strong

ties to anarchist organizations and projects. Anarchists (us included)

identify with and support the willingness of individuals in the movement

to engage in direct action against state and capital and some animal

liberationists have embraced an anti-state/anti-capitalist analysis.

This has led some animal liberationists to describe their movement as an

explicitly anarchist project. While the discussion of human-animal

relations has added to anarchist theory and we can find moments of

affinity with animal liberationists who engage in direct action, the

isolated struggle against speciesism and the movement’s intense moralism

are at odds with our project of insurrection.

Isolating issues can only lead to isolated struggles

In Animal Liberation and Social Revolution, Brian Dominick falls short

in his description of what he calls ‘the Establishment’ — “an entity

which exists solely for the perpetuation of the power of a relative

minority.” Although he recognizes that the Establishment exists in order

to maintain the social relationships that keep the dominant social order

intact, by listing all of the oppressions that the Establishment employs

(classism, racism, patriarchy, etc.) and attempting to deal with them

individually, Dominick fails to confront the totality of this system.

Present society is ruled by a web of domination composed of

institutions, structures, and relationships which completely dominate

our lives. The state, work, the family, religion and technology are

examples of institutions that combine to create the network that stops

us from living as free individuals. Each of these institutions forces us

into social roles not of our choosing with the primary purpose of

maintaining the system of domination. Only by breaking out of these

social roles and creating our lives in a way that refuses all domination

can we begin to destroy this society.

To subvert the Establishment, Dominick asks us to challenge oppressive

attitudes such as racism, patriarchy, and speciesism, suggesting that

equalizing the power within these relationships (white-black, man-woman,

human-animal) will abolish the oppression. But so long as these ways of

relating with each other exist, we will never eradicate these attitudes

or the Establishment. Attempting to merely change the meanings of these

oppressive relationships will always limit what we can accomplish; by

focusing on oppressive attitudes, we become distracted from the root of

the issue – the institutions that force us to engage in these oppressive

relationships. “By accepting the idea (promoted heavily by progressive

education and publicity) that the structures of oppression are

essentially mindsets inside of ourselves, we become focused on our own

presumed weakness, on how crippled we supposedly are. Our time is eaten

up by attempts at self-healing that never come to an end, because we

become so focused on ourselves and our inability to walk that we fail to

notice the chain on our leg.” (Wolfi Landstreicher, Against the Logic of

Submission)

So long as we continue to merely respond to oppression from within the

confines of roles not of our choosing, we will never be able to destroy

the Establishment. We need to reclaim our lives as our own and in the

process destroy this society which limits our freedom. Of course, the

various oppressions that exist have real effects on real individuals,

but the only way to break free of these oppressive relationships is to

rid ourselves of the web of domination, rejecting the social roles

created for us and living as free individuals. While this process will

manifest differently for each individual, this is part of the

insurrectional project we have chosen to undertake.

Who wants a Bill of Animal Rights anyways?

Despite their attempts to show otherwise, the animal liberation movement

is single-issue by definition. Although they connect the oppression of

animals to other forms of oppressive behavior (racism, sexism, etc.), by

continuing to focus on the behavior rather than the institutions that

force the social roles upon us they fail to challenge domination in its

totality.

To show how radical the movement is, animal liberationists draw

comparisons to other social movements such as black liberation and

feminism. But these comparisons serve only to demonstrate how liberal

the movement truly is. For example, when Steven Best refers to the

animal liberation as the ‘new abolitionism’, he limits the movement’s

actions to merely demanding for change within the confines of this

system. This way of thinking leads Best to suggest that “[b]uilding on

the momentum, consciousness, and achievements of past abolitionists and

suffragettes, the struggle of the new abolitionists might conceivably

culminate in a Bill of (Animal) Rights.” (Rethinking Revolution) Since a

Bill of (Human) Rights has clearly given us our freedoms, it’s no wonder

that Best wants the same for animals.

Similarly, Dominick points out that “[f]eminism and veganism have much

in common, and each has plenty to teach to and learn from the other.”

(Animal Liberation and Social Revolution) We fully agree with Dominick —

both are liberal ways of attempting to deal with a single form of

exploitation in isolation. While it is imperative we attempt to minimize

the ways in which we perpetuate speciesist and sexist behavior, we

disagree with Dominick’s contention that feminism and the animal

liberation movement (and its associated lifestyle choice ‘ethical

veganism’) are radical responses to them.

Best complains that “because animal liberation challenges the

anthropocentric, speciesist, and humanist dogmas that are so deeply

entrenched in socialist and anarchist thinking and traditions, Leftists

are more likely to mock than engage it.” (Rethinking Revolution) It

seems obvious that the reason some anarchists mock the animal liberation

movement is because of its attempt to deal with animal exploitation as

an isolated issue, rather than confronting the entire system of

domination. By referring to anarchists as part of ‘the left’, Best fails

to recognize that although some anarchists choose to associate

themselves with the left, many anarchists, us included, have chosen to

distance themselves from the liberal ideology of the political left.

Militant activists are still activists

Best distinguishes animal liberationists from the overall animal rights

movement by claiming that liberationists engage in ‘non-statist’ (and

thus, anarchist) action, while animal rightists engage in ‘statist’

projects. Non-statist actions include any action that does not fall

under state-sanctioned activities, such as peaceful protest, voting, and

petitioning. However, his distinction seems to be completely arbitrary,

as many animal liberationists also engage in ‘statist’ actions including

vegan outreach and legal reform (see, for example, the government funded

group ‘Animal Liberation’ or the vegan outreach and potluck group

‘Animal Liberation Action’ in North Carolina). To claim that the animal

liberation movement engages in only ‘non-statist’ activity is a blatant

misrepresentation of the movement.

It’s also worth pointing out that just because someone engages in

‘non-statist’ action does not mean they have gone beyond liberal

ideology. Best implies that anyone willing to break the law is an

anarchist when he declares that “the [Animal Liberation Movement]

challenge the myths of representative democracy, as they explore direct

action and live in anarchist cultures.” Best also claims that “Not only

are animal liberationists anarchist in their social and political

outlook, they are also anarchist in their organization and tactics. The

small cells [of] ALF activists… are akin to anarchist affinity groups in

their mutual aid, solidarity, and consciousness building.” (ibid) But

just because a group uses anarchist tactics does not mean that they

share an affinity with all anarchists in the way that they create their

life project. While attacking institutions of domination is part of the

insurrectional project, by issuing communiqués that demand “animal

liberation – no matter what it may take”, the movement continues to deal

with the oppression of animals as an isolated issue. The insurrectional

project goes beyond this specialization and expands revolt to an attack

against all the forces that dominate us.

ALF activist Walter Bond has written essays titled Supreme Vegan Power

and The Crusade for Animal and Earth Liberation – this certainly does

not sound like an anarchist who is concerned with attacking the system

of domination in its totality. In fact, these titles sound frighteningly

similar to white supremacist and religious propaganda – maybe not

entirely surprising coming from a member of a movement completely

obsessed with enforcing a specific diet. Bond specifically refers to

himself as, first and foremost, an animal liberation activist. He then

goes on to say that if a case arose in which it was necessary to choose

between animal and human needs, he would choose the ‘innocent’ animals

over humans because “our depravity, perversion, and lust for blood as a

species is profound and disturbing!” (Supreme Power Vegan) This

misanthropic attitude certainly is not that of an anarchist, but one of

a single-issue activist concerned solely with animal liberation. Bond

demonstrates that the tactics do not define the individual, and although

it may seem that we are using this one individual to represent the

entire movement, our experience finds these to be widespread themes.

Best himself is guilty of this when he states that “I cannot fathom

privileging a work reduction for humans who live relatively comfortable

lives to ameliorating the obscene suffering of tens of billions of

animals who are confined, tortured, and killed each year in the most

unspeakable ways.” (Rethinking Revolution)

It seems obvious that the animal liberation movement is not anarchist,

as Best and Dominick suggest, but is in fact just a militant faction of

activists. Dominick seems to think that the two are synonymous when he

suggests that “[w]ithout claiming to speak for all, I will say that

those I consider true anarchists and animal liberationists seek to

realize our visions via any means effective. We understand, contrary to

mainstream perceptions of us, that wanton destruction and violence will

not bring about the end we desire.” (Animal Liberation and Social

Revolution) As anarchists, we do not bother with the activist obsession

with effectiveness, as this often causes paralysis, over-analysis of the

action, and an attempt to find the ‘perfect’ action. Instead, we suggest

attacking institutions of domination with the “playful ferocity”

referred to by Feral Faun in Insurgent Ferocity. Although this can be

done tactically, we will not allow effectiveness to channel our revolt

against the forces of domination. We are not sure what perfect ending

Dominick seems to desire, but “wanton destruction and violence” can

certainly be a part of our projects.

It is also worth pointing out that many actions advocated for by Best

and the animal liberation movement are merely acts of civil

disobedience. Although these actions challenge specific laws, their

purpose is to show that certain laws protecting animal exploitation are

unjust and need to be changed. In Best’s speech Veganism: The War We

Cannot Lose he states, “[s]tart breaking the law, start joining in civil

disobedience. Fuck the law! When the law is wrong the right thing to do

is break it! Now you think I sound radical? I’m only quoting Gandhi and

Martin Luther King.” Although we agree that laws should be broken, we

reject the liberal suggestion that they should be broken only when they

are ‘wrong’. As anarchists, we reject all laws and have no interest in

Gandhi and King’s desire to beg the state for more ‘just’ laws.

Steven Best – Animal Rightist

Perhaps it is no surprise that Best advocates for civil disobedience

since he supports the law as long as it protects the rights of animals.

He does acknowledge that “[r]ights, in short, are created by the

capitalist elite for the capitalist elite,” but then goes on to say that

“it would be a strategic error of the highest order to abandon the

discourse of rights as a critical tool for animal liberation, as it has

ably served the cause of all past human liberation struggles.”

(Rethinking Revolution) We are very curious what liberation struggle has

been aided by begging the state for rights. It seems obvious to us that

any rights that have been granted by the state have been awarded only

because it is in their interest – whether it directly benefits those in

power or stifles revolt. Best should certainly understand this, as any

concessions that have been gained in the struggle for animal liberation

(larger cages, free range meat, etc.) have only helped maintain the meat

industry by providing customers with ‘happy meat’. Let’s make no

mistake, green capitalism is still capitalism and is in no way progress.

But Best claims that “the concept of rights continues to inflame

rebellion and the political imagination, [and] continues to provide a

critical leverage and internal critique against capitalist

exploitation.” (ibid) Well, this is hardly radical and certainly not

anarchist. The concept of rights does nothing but quench the fire of

rebellion and pushes people towards reforming the current social order

rather than destroying it. Best even goes as far to say that “[i]n a

non-statist society, rights can ‘wither away’.” (ibid) But why would

rights that were presumably seen as victories simply ‘wither away’? Does

it not seem more plausible that a movement struggling for rights would

fight to keep those rights, eventually solidifying them into laws and

moral absolutes? A project of liberation cannot use or advocate for

state-approved methods of revolt because doing so only strengthens the

state’s power.

Supreme vegan moralism

As anarchists, we are not only against all laws but also against any

construct which limits our individual freedom. As such, we are opposed

to the leftist view that a future society must be developed around

universal principles and morals. This critique is influenced by Max

Stirner’s The Ego and Its Own, which shows that morals and laws are

identical in how they are constructed to govern our actions. Morals are

values which are set in stone and then applied universally, regardless

of context. The political left, including the animal liberation

movement, engage in moralism, which is the act of not only living by

morals but using them as tools to affect social change. Moralism

restricts the individual’s freedom by forcing them to live by these

constructed beliefs, whether or not they apply to the unique situations

we experience. We refuse to live our lives by any construct and instead

live according to our real desires and passions.

Steven Best says that “Animal liberation is the next necessary and

logical development in moral evolution and political struggle.”

(Rethinking Revolution) The ‘moral evolution’ he refers to is the

application of the moral principle that it is always wrong to kill and

consume another living being. Although this may be a valid way to live

in certain circumstances, by making it a universal principle, animal

liberationists put limits on the ways we can interact with the world.

But Best shows that he is clearly not opposed to the universal

application of an abstract concept when he asks “is it any less

‘totalitarian’ to enforce prohibitions against killing human beings

[than those against killing animals]?” (ibid) Any universal law against

killing humans or animals is equally totalitarian and as anarchists we

reject any such prohibition. Best goes on to say that “[a]ny future

society worth fighting for will be based on principles of universal

democracy that forbids any form of exploitation, regardless of the

species.” We certainly would not bother fighting for a future society

based on universal principles governing any aspect of our lives. We have

no interest in defining what the future will look like – each individual

and group of individuals will have to decide their path for themselves

based on their lived experience.

The problem with representation

Since the anarchist project is one of reclaiming our lives, it must also

be one that rejects all representation. We are against anyone who

attempts to speak on our behalf and we have no interest in voicing the

desires of anyone but ourselves. The animal liberation movement is

inherently based on representation, as animal liberationists act on

behalf of animals. Best is at least explicit about this, admitting that

“[w]hatever language we use to describe it, enlightened humans must

speak for the animals.” (ibid) Maybe the meaning of representation

confuses Best, because this is certainly not a reflection of a movement

that “challenge[s] the myths of representative democracy.” (ibid) Our

goal should not be to represent the needs of animals, since this will

limit us to the reformist position of improving their condition within

present society. We should be attempting to create new ways of relating

with the world that do not require ‘enlightened’ humans speaking on

behalf of anyone, animals included.

4. Beyond Animal Liberation

Like feminism, animal liberation is a response to an isolated oppression

and an attempt to change the power dynamic within a specific

relationship. While discussions of the oppressive attitudes we exhibit

can help us develop new understandings of how domination manifests in

daily life, the focus on specific attitudes only serves to reinforce the

social roles forced upon us.

Since animal liberation is an attempt to balance the power in the

human-animal relationship, like all liberal movements, animal

liberationists rely on morals to define the way this power will be

equalized. In our experience, there are two dominant forms of such

moralism. The first, generally expressed in the more ‘radical’ factions

of the movement, is that animals should be granted the status of person

and with it the inalienable rights of humans. The second is that the act

of consuming an animal is inherently violent and dominating. Animal

liberationists may use one or both of these arguments, but since they

are separate we will deal with them as such.

Taking a brick to the relationship

As discussed earlier, present society is made up of social roles which

have been forced upon us by the various institutions of domination. The

purpose of these social roles is to alienate us from ourselves, thereby

preventing us from living as free individuals. The human-animal

relationship is one example of these social roles. In this society,

humans are seen as subjects, while animals are seen as objects, there

for our consumption. Animal liberationists recognize this unbalance of

power, but they adopt the typical liberal response of attempting to

elevate animals to the status of person, changing the power dynamic

within the human-animal relationship. For example, Walter Bond asks

“Would you eat the dead and broken bodies of child laborers left in the

trash?” attempting to demonstrate that one should treat animals as they

do humans. (Supreme Power Vegan)

This is similar to the feminist desire to elevate woman to the level of

man. Feminists recognize the power imbalance in the man-woman

relationship and like animal liberationists attempt to correct this

imbalance by equalizing the power within the relationship. What they

fail to grasp is that so long as the social roles continue to be filled,

the relationship cannot change in any meaningful way. As pointed out on

the Not Yr Cister Press website, “patriarchy can only exist so long as

it is performed — that is, so long as the role of the man is fulfilled.

What we want, quite simply – as for with any other determinate role

imposed by and in the service of capital – is for it to be destroyed.”

Simply replace patriarchy with speciesism and man with human, and this

statement shows the shortcomings of the animal liberation movement. It

is not enough to attempt to alter the balance of power in the

relationship. We must go beyond the social roles that have been forced

upon us – beyond the role of man, of woman, even the role of human. We

must subvert the human-animal relationship that is based on human

dominance over animals and start creating new relationships that reflect

our desires and passions. Coupled with a project of attack on the

institutions that perpetuate relationships based on domination, this is

part of the insurrectional project that we engage in.

We have no interest in defining how these new relationships will

develop. However, it is important to recognize that the only examples of

communities that have gone beyond the human-animal dichotomy are

so-called ‘primitive’ societies. By considering themselves part of the

earth, indigenous peoples have lived without the social roles that

define humans as separate from animals. This does not mean that we are

advocating for the primitivist position that we return to a certain way

of living — we have no interest in defining what the future should look

like, nor are we trying to turn the real lived experiences of indigenous

people into mere concepts. We are simply pointing out that these

individuals have managed to live without the human-animal binary and

this should be our goal as well. Once we begin to create relationships

of our choosing, we can start to live our lives as free and wild

individuals, unrestricted by the social roles currently forced upon us.

There is no systematic violence in the wild

When animal liberationists claim that killing an animal is always an act

of violence and domination, our objection is not with the first point,

but with the second. While we agree that killing another animal is

always a violent act, we reject the idea that violence is always an act

of domination. In his essay Insurgent Ferocity, Feral Faun points out

that “[v]iolence, in itself, does not perpetuate violence. The social

system of rationalized violence, of which pacifism is an integral part,

perpetuates itself as a system.” For example, the capitalist system

forces us to work on projects not of our choosing, with the main purpose

being the continuation of our need to work to survive. Absent of the

social institutions that use violence to reproduce themselves, violence

simply becomes momentary flare-ups between individuals. “Violence is an

aspect of animal interaction... There is no systematic violence in the

wild, but, instead, momentary expressions of specific passions.” (ibid)

As wild individuals living according to our desires and passions, we may

engage in temporary moments of violence. Since these moments are not

used to maintain social control, the only reason to oppose such violence

is a pacifist mentality. We will not bother pointing out the problems

with pacifism since so many others have done so at length already.

[1] For examples please see, for Marino:

www.negotiationisover.net

; Vlasak:

arzone.ning.com

; Yourofsky:

www.adaptt.org

; and Young:

strikingattheroots.wordpress.com

[2] See, for example, Frank R. Ascione & Phil Arkow, Child Abuse,

Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse.