At the
very core of every injustice is the belief that existence is founded
upon a hierarchy of power and entitlement instead of an inborn call
towards compassion and ethical moral duty. We are born onto this
planet with little security, and as we become embedded in our
society, we seek to compensate for our existential insecurities by
developing defense mechanisms against the natural world. We build
literal and metaphorical walls to protect ourselves, we strive to
cure mortality with medicine and science, and we place faith in
religions that promise a way out – one big EXIT sign to fixate upon
in order to avoid the claustrophobic hallway of our pain, grief,
vulnerability, and even the terrifying depths of our joy and love
that our psyches equate to eventual loss. Separating ourselves from
the natural world allows us the illusion of immunity to it.
Throughout history, this struggle to gain control over our
environment and our selves has led to wars, environmental
destruction, and mass social injustice. Feminist philosophers argue
that the view of “self” as of the mind but not the body is
responsible for laying the foundation that enables such damage, and
the correlation must be drawn between our denial of the body, of the
natural world, and subsequently to the billions of animals exploited
each year in America alone for human use (Browning). As long as we
are separating the mind from the body, we are inviting oppression
against the feminine and against nature and entitling ourselves to
disregard the value of non-human sentient beings. The psychological
disconnect that allows the human species to exploit non-human animals
is a result of the patriarchal view of self, and its mending lies in
feminist ethics.
In order
to understand the damage done by this disconnect, we must look at the
consequences of our actions. It is nearly impossible to go one day
without condoning, supporting, or witnessing the
exploitation
of animals. For a society who claims to view pets as family members,
the hypocrisy and ignorance of such exploitation is alarming. If we
treated a household pet the way animals are treated in order to feed,
clothe, entertain, or “cure” us, we would be considered criminals
and find ourselves in jail instead of safeguarded by our
justifications for such abuse (Hodson). Isn't it our ethical duty to
take responsibility for our actions? With eyes and ears closed, the
gates to cruelty, environmental destruction, human health issues, and
worldwide oppression remain wide open.
According
to the USDA, 9.1 billion animals were slaughtered in 2013 alone (
"Farm
Animal Statistics: Slaughter Totals : The Humane Society of the
United States."). While the meat
and dairy industry would love us to believe that their animals graze
happily in pastures of green grass, clear blue skies, and under the
care of Farmer Sally donned in overalls, the reality could not be
farther from the grotesque truth. Welcome to the factory farm.
Animals are crammed so tightly into cages that they cannot even turn
around, let alone walk, breathe fresh air, feel the warmth of the
sun, or live one mere moment of their lives free from suffering.
Their living conditions are deplorable; animals are covered in
sores, feces, and chickens' beaks are cut off at birth to stop them
from eating each other due to the stress of overcrowding. Animals
are raped by machines in order to breed as many offspring as
possible, or profitable I should say, and their babies are ripped
from them as soon as they are born. For baby cows, if they are to be
used for veal, they are immediately locked into a tiny wooden crate
that shuts out all light, and are made immobile to purposefully
hinder the development of their muscles in order to produce the
desired meat quality. Cows and pigs alike are shot and then hung
upside down, throats slit to drain their blood, and then they are
gutted and skinned. There have been countless documentaries of
undercover footage showing the animals remaining conscious throughout
much of this process . A factory farm worker once told the
Washington Post that the animals “die piece by piece”
(“Animals Used for Food”). This is not the exception; this is
not rare. This is where your food comes from.
We also
kill animals for fur, leather, and sheepskin each year. Animals in
fur farms are kept in
similar
conditions to factory farms, and are often skinned alive, if clubbing
or bludgeoning fails to do the trick. For some reason, leather slips
under the ethical radar of most consumers, probably because the
animal hide is treated so extensively that we think of it more as a
fabric than slimy, once-bloodied skin. Every year, the world
slaughters over a billion animals for leather alone (“Animals Used
for Food”). The tribal days of killing an animal for survival, and
then using every part of its body in an effort to honor the being and
avoid wastefulness are long gone, at least in the modern world. Make
no mistake: these means of violent abuse are not justified by their
end, for when the issue of survival is off the table, we must use
Ethics as a guide.
The
beauty industry conceals not only skin blemishes, but the ugly
practice of animal testing for make-up and body products. This
entails testing toxic chemicals on the skin, eyes, ears, and insides
of animals, not simply letting a mouse try on different shades of
lavender. Animals used in testing for cosmetic and household
products and medical research are stripped of their value and become
nothing more than a science experiment. Making animals sick is
justified by the promise of making the lives of human's better. We
perform experiments on animals that are deemed cruel and unethical to
perform on humans, and the believed inferiority of the animal
kingdom, and therefore nature, justifies such. Does not our capacity
to reason, which is used by critics to prove we are somehow “better”,
make us responsible for said reasoning, and should we not reason
through a lens of ethics instead of speciesist greed? The
philosopher Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation,
states that “What we must do is bring non-human animals within our
sphere of moral concern and cease to treat their lives as expendable
for whatever trivial purposes we may have” (Singer 20).
It's
not enough to eat, wear, and experiment on the beings we share the
Earth with, but we also find entertainment in making them perform as
if they were humans. Like a scene from King Kong,
we pay to watch animals do tricks in circuses, living lives in
captivity where their worth is only seen
relative to human amusement. This performance, this false view of
reality and the so-called “loving”
relationship we have with animals, is seen in zoos when families take
their children to gaze at lions going mad in metal cages and
artificial habitats. Even our closest perceived bond and
appreciation for animals is tainted: household pets are considered
“family”, yet the love is relative (Hal Herzog). Millions of
cats and dogs are killed in shelters all over the country because of
puppy-mills and breeding. We call the dog that we bought from a
breeder “family” while we cook steak for dinner (Hodson). The
contradiction is yet another reflection of our severed relationship
to the natural world, and consequently, our selves.
Of
course, justifications for animal exploitation are just as excessive
as the extent of which it occurs. It is difficult to heal a wound
when you are not convinced of the injury itself. The use of animals
has been a vital part of society since the start of humanity, and
critics of “animal rights” argue that it's for good reason.
While few people would choose to align themselves with the abuse that
occurs in factory farms, the idea that using them is just a part of
the “cycle of life” is a widely upheld belief (Scully).
Humans' dependence on animals is a sign of our cultural and
interpersonal connections, they argue, with the fulfillment of
animal-involving traditions woven deeply into a society's identity.
They point out that many cultures around the world have beautiful
rituals of honoring the animals they use- nothing like the
thoughtless cruelty condoned in America with fast food restaurants
and factory farms. For many families, eating or wearing animals is
necessary for their well-being. Furthermore, they find ties to their
ancestors in taking part in such rituals, as well as a sense of
community, and expecting such changes to be made in other cultures is
a denial of their own value and a result of cultural relativism
fueled by privilege. Expecting animal products, or the work of
animals, to evaporate from a culture's landscape is like expecting a
lung to evaporate from a human body, yet leave the body fully
functioning.
The most stark contradiction that strikes me in this argument is the
assumption that in today's
world, especially in America, survival is a valid reason for our
treatment of animals, as if we are all
running around in the forest, starving, and in desperate need of any
source of nutrition. Clearly, that's
not the case at all. Our use of animals is not for survival; this is
not some Pocahontas-themed result of just how connected we are to
nature or our culture. After all, I don't kill in order to connect, do you? The fact that we participate in such
contradictory practices is proof of how disconnected we are from
nature, and since cultures evolve throughout time, shouldn't our
ethics evolve with them? For this is not a call for improving animal
welfare in attempt to soften our guilty conscience-it is a call to
question the validity and moral value of the beliefs we affirm as
truth when we exploit animals.
In an attempt to persuade people to alter their lifestyle, I could
go into depth of how using animals is destructive to humans, as the
animal agriculture industry produces more pollution than all
worldwide transportation combined, and animal products cause more
harm than healthfulness to human bodies(“Meat and the
Environment”). Brilliant minds such as authors Peter Singer and
Gary Francione have already thoroughly made the case against animal
exploitation with logic and common sense, using already accepted
moral standards to shine the light on the the dark contradictions of
the consumer. Yet still, the disconnect. Our ability to disengage
from the natural world, to find comfort in speciesism, and to seek
alibi through ignorance is what I find most concerning. We place a
dangerous distance between ourselves and accountability when we deny
our communion with the physical and animal world. This denial has
been heavily criticized by feminist philosophers who see the root of
all oppression and injustice as the patriarchal view of self
(Browning).
In
her essay Body,
Mind, & Gender,
Eve Browning Cole seeks to present the effects of Western philosophy
and its belief that the “self”, “soul”, or “consciousness”
is entirely separate from the physical body. The body is viewed as a
machine with the mind as its operator. This simple viewpoint, she
argues, sets up society for automatic oppression and justification
for mistreating those seen as “of the body”, or “animal”, and
not of the mind (Browning). The 17th
century philosopher Rene Descartes
played a large role in this mind vs. body sense of self. In his
mission to discover the truth of self, he
withdrew from society and used “doubting” to deconstruct, and
therefore compartmentalize,
the elements of his existence. After doubting the reliability of his
senses, he came to the conclusion that he is of a “certain
existence, but an uncertain body” (Browning). Like Plato, he
believed that the body is an instrument the soul uses, with the soul,
or mind, being superior.
Feminist
philosophers point out that this method of analyzing self is
illogical since the sharing of knowledge and social norms begins in
society. They argue that we are of
society, not in spite of it. And furthermore, that we are of
the natural world, not an exception to it (Browning). It is
imperative that we look to our relationships when becoming curious
about the makeup of our psyche. The referral to a self that is
isolated comes from gender socialization and enforces patriarchy. In
the past, men went out into the world, worked, and spent time with
the family periodically, so the male learned to distinguish himself,
to view himself as “other” and “separate from”. While the
female, on the other hand, was constantly with the family, and served
as the primary caregiver, which led her to identify herself through
her relationships with others (Browning). Therefore, feminists
explain, the view of self as “isolated” is masculine, and such a
belief automatically makes that which is feminine inferior.
With
the body and the feminine accepted as interconnected, it is easy to
draw the conclusion that little to no value would be bestowed upon
nature as well. As author Ynestra King so bluntly explained:
“Patriarchal humanity declared war on women and on living nature”
(King). We even refer to the natural world as Mother
Nature, and so the associations with inferiority persist. The ethics
of feminism combat this hierarchy by insisting that the “more
connected the self is to others, the better the self is” (Tong and
Williams).
In accepting the body as of equal worth to the mind, we allow for a
shift in our orientation towards nature and animals (Peek et. al).
When filtered through this relational mindset, the idea that our
ability to use “logic” gives us dominion over animals is
extracted at its root. Ability no longer
justifies
the action. In the book Signs,
Josephine Donovan says, “Out
of a women's relational culture of
caring
and attentive love, therefore, emerges the basis for a feminist ethic
for the treatment of animals.
We
should not kill, eat, torture, and exploit animals because they do
not want to be so treated, and we know that. If we listen, we can
hear them” (Donovan 375).
The
solution to the patriarchally-driven disconnect between self and
nature (mind and body) is simultaneously difficult and easy to apply;
it requires personal responsibility to be taken by each individual.
While people may scoff at the notion, dismissing it as impossible to
implement, now that we have found the direct connection between the
empowerment of the female and the degree to which animal life is
valued, we can work to bring awareness, appreciation, and acceptance
to the body. This spread of knowledge that ultimately causes social
change through activism has been evident in every civil movement,
including the civil rights movement, the first-wave feminist
movement, and today it is evident in the movement for equal rights
for gays and lesbians. The solution is not a government program that
promises to fix a glitch in the system, but a complete (although
often times gradual) redesign.
From
an early age, women are taught to suppress their very femininity, and
their worth is only measured relative to external standards, usually
contrived by men. Women face constant judgement over the way they
look and how they act, with every pore of their being absorbing the
message that they are “not enough” (Browning). We are
conditioned to believe that things that are feminine, again, of the
body, such as menstrual cycles are not to be spoken of or
acknowledged, heaven forbid celebrated. The same is evident in the
ridiculous debate over breast feeding in public. The message is
clear: if it's natural, if you can't control it, then deny it. Any
nature-given aspect is a threat to patriarchy because it reminds us
that we belong to nature- it does not belong to us.
Feminist philosophers urge us to see this fact as liberating instead
of oppressive, as a cure to our psychological distress instead of a
problem that needs fixing. Women must make the choice to be
women,
in every sense of the word, to promote an “embodied self”, with
no apologies. It starts with
literature,
with organizing sources of support for women. It starts with how we
guide our children to a
healthy
relationship with their feelings, so that we view our bodies as
friends instead of enemies. It starts with education in our school
system that does not perpetuate shame in being female, but that gives
boys and the girls the tools to make conscious decisions for
themselves about their own bodies. It starts with bringing into
awareness the true science of sexuality, not the story told to us by
religion, and with women demanding ownership of their sexuality.
When
we deny our self the freedom of embodiment, we deny the natural
world. If we truly wish to eliminate the animal suffering that is a
result of exploitation, we must reevaluate what it means to be
animal, to be a body, and to be a self.
References:
"Animals
Used for Food." PETA.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
“Meat
and the Environment.” PETA.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
Browning,
Eve. "Body, Mind, and Gender." Philosophy
and Feminist Criticism: An Introduction.
New York: Paragon House, 1993. N. pag. Print.
Donovan,
Josephine. "Animal Rights and Feminist Theory." Signs:
Journal of Women in Culture and Society
15.2 (1990): 350. JSTOR.
Web. 26 Apr. 2014.
"Farm
Animal Statistics: Slaughter Totals : The Humane Society of the
United States." Humane
Society.
N.p., 17 Apr. 2014. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
Hal
Herzog October 13. "Love Cats, Eat Cows?" Los
Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times, 13 Oct. 2013. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
Hodson,
Gordon, Ph. D. "The Meat Paradox: Loving but Exploiting
Animals." Psychology
Today: Health, Help, Happiness Find a Therapist.
N.p., 3 Mar. 2014. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.
King,
Ynestra. “Healing the Wounds: Feminism, Ecology, and the
Nature/Culture Dualism.” Gender/Body/Knowledge:
Feminist Reconstructions of Being and Knowing.
Ed. Allison M. Jaggar & Susan Bordo. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press, 1989. 115-134. Print.
Peek,
Charles W., Nancy J. Bell, and Charlotte C. Dunham. "Gender,
Gender Ideology, and Animal Rights Advocacy." Gender
and Society
10.4 (1996): 464-78. JSTOR.
Web. 26 Apr. 2014.
Scully,
Matthew. "Fear Factories." American
Conservative Vol. 4, No. 10.
23 May. 2005: 7-14. SIRS
Issues Researcher.
Web. 07 Apr. 2014.
Singer,
Peter. Animal
Liberation.
New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2009. Print.
Tong,
Rosemarie and Williams, Nancy, "Feminist Ethics", The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring
2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
URL<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/feminism-ethics/>.
