Teraga

IS ANIMAL OPPRESSION THE MOTHER OF ALL OPPRESSIONS?

Years ago, I stumbled upon a thought-provoking yet mysterious article about the interconnection between animal oppression and social and ecological injustice. In a bid to share its content with as many people as possible, I wrote about it in the (now defunct) blog "Anthropocene Notes".

The original paper (read it here) makes an excellent case for taking the oppression of nonhuman animals seriously and reviewing our attitude towards animals and "the other".

My post tries to summarise some of the most salient points made by the author. I hope you will find it as insightful as I did!

In this interesting article, scholar and activist Robert Lucius maintains that speciesism is a major driver of injustice for both humans and nonhumans, as all forms of oppression have the same root and are interconnected.

According to the author, ecological and social justice cannot be achieved unless humans stop the oppression of nonhuman species, and speciesism can be considered the fourth "axis" of injustice and oppression alongside racism, sexism and heterosexism.

Lucius uses various sociological theories to demonstrate that nonhuman animals are victims of widespread and systematic oppression and provides many examples to support his claim. In particular, he argues that nonhuman animals are kept in a state of oppression by a complex power structure which uses economy, politics, culture, religion, laws and language to keep human domination over other species unchallenged.

In the article, Young's (2004) five elements of oppression are used to demonstrate how our treatment of nonhuman animals fits perfectly into the definition of "oppression". In fact, according to Young, oppression is characterised by:

1. exploitation, here Lucius lists an impressive number of ways in which nonhuman animals are exploited, from agriculture to entertainment and scientific research;


2. marginalisation, nonhuman animals perceived as not adding value to human society are treated as disposable. One example is "food animals" who are ruthlessly killed when unable to keep up with unbearable production demands (think of male chicks or cows who cannot produce enough milk);


3. powerlessness, nonhuman animals are rendered powerless by anthropocentric laws and politics which do not guarantee a fair representation of their rights and needs. One example given by the author is the introduction of ag-gag laws criminalising undercover attempts at documenting violence in animal agriculture;


4. cultural imperialism, Lucius cites author and activist Carol J. Adams and her concept of a ‘language of lies’ needed to uphold human dominion over other species;


5. systematic violence, albeit violence upon nonhuman animals may be perceived as random, it is the consequence of systematic marginalisation and depiction of the oppressed groups as "less worthy" by privileged groups. Forms of systematic violence on nonhuman animals are socially accepted and even considered "normal, necessary, and natural".

Oppression and privilege are interconnected and Lucius cites philosophy scholar and professor Alison Bailey to outline how privilege can be recognised. According to Bailey, privilege has the four following characteristics:

• it confers unearned advantages;
• it is often justified as natural or given (thus indisputable);
• it is not recognised by those who benefit from it;
• it brings advantages in an array of situations.

Humans can therefore be said to benefit from "human privilege" as they are able to exploit other species without questioning or having to defend their actions (which tend to be seen as "natural").

Human privilege is kept alive by a "species contract", an implicit understanding that has existed for millennia, supported by power structures that allow humans to continue to exploit other species for self-interest.

According to the author, the "species contract" works as a "primordial model" for other types of oppression, including intraspecies ones. Speciesist (but also racist, sexist and capitalist) ideology is seen as a justification created specifically to provide a rational explanation for the continued oppression of certain groups, both human and nonhuman. Speciesism is therefore seen as a consequence and not as a cause of nonhuman oppression.

This specific point is in accordance with Nibert's theory of oppression, which Lucius cites, according which oppression happens when there is:

• competition between groups over resources*
• an existing power imbalance, this can be coercive or cultural, economic or political
• an ideology which is used to devalue other groups

*According to Nibert, species, gender and social stratification processes started with the passage from foraging to hunter-gathering. Particularly, when humans started to consider nonhuman animals as prey, and men who hunted and performed harder physical tasks earned increased social privilege over women and those with more resources grouped in "castes".

Modern animal agriculture is used as the most explicative example of nonhuman oppression given its trail of negative consequences such as unnecessary suffering for nonhumans, rising greenhouse gases, zoonotic risk and socio-economic impact on the poorest communities.

In addition, Lucius cites Costello and Hodson's "Interspecies Model of Prejudice" (IMP) to argue that the more we devalue nonhuman animals, the more we tend to devalue other humans by likening them to "animals". On the contrary, those who show an increased appreciation towards nonhuman animals tend to do the same with other humans.

This particular point is also supported by a study showing how attention to animal rights is often linked to increased attention towards the rights of disadvantaged human categories.

Finally, the author invites academia to challenge the dominance of speciesist thinking and acknowledge the significance and consequences of anthropocentric privilege.

---

Reference: Lucius, Robert (2015), "The Oppression of Non-human Animals as a Crisis of Social and Ecological Justice".

Why Lucius'article is worth reading:
- it is thought-provoking;
- it is an insightful read for everyone;
- it uses of a sociological theories, some of them originally devised to address human issues, and specific examples to demonstrate that nonhuman animals are victims of oppression;
- it gives an overview of the negative consequences of nonhuman animals' oppression in different areas, including the social and environmental spheres and provides a rich and interesting list of references.