You know Britain is seriously at risk from a slash-and-burn and shock-and-awe ConDem coalition government when even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds runs a campaign to protest against spending cuts. As good as the RSPB is it can hardly be characterised as an organisation which you would expect to see at the barricades, is it?
Sociologist Anthony Giddens writes about the Catalan Parliament’s recent ban to outlaw bullfights and the British Government’s recent ban on hunting.
Whilst short-term political manoeuvring is part of any explanation of the timing of such bans, for sociologists there has been a discernible long-term modern trend or social process towards the appreciation and conservation of nature and increasing concern with the welfare of animals. Modern cultures are generally animal welfare cultures. From the sixteenth century onwards, but gathering pace during eighteenth-century industrialization and nineteenth-century urbanization, as more people became less directly involved in working with animals in agriculture, a more detached view of human–animal relations emerged that spread across social groups and classes. With the growth in power of the modern state and its monopolization of the means of violence also came a revulsion at the use of violence against both humans and animals so that previously enjoyable animal ‘sports’ came to be re-classified as just so many instances of intolerable cruelty. Gradually, animals became the subject of increasing moral concern and any social practices which harmed or injured them were called into question. Similarly, the mass slaughter of animals for food had to be hidden out of sight behind the scenes of everyday life. Adopting this long-term perspective helps us to better understand why we remain so much more disturbed by animal cruelty than people were in previous times. But whether that makes us ‘better people’ is an entirely different matter.
Power: A Radical View by Steven Lukes (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, second edition)
Anyone read Power: A Radical View by Steven Lukes? I’m quick reading it. One point stood out, which now seems so obvious, but never occurred to me before: Power is at its most effective when it is invisible. A good case in point is the power of speciesism–the ideology by which humans exert power over other species. Speciesism isn’t discussed by Lukes but I’m enjoying exploring his book nonetheless.
Guardian columnist George Monbiot writes about how the “built environment makes us.” I know from my experiences that the place where I am greatly affects the mood I become. I link the version of the article on his Web site because it includes the references. Here’s a quote to inspire you to read it all.
We are, to a surprising extent, what the built environment makes us. Academic papers show that many of the problems we blame on individual behaviour are caused in part by the places in which we live. People are more likely to help their neighbours in quiet areas, for example, than in noisy ones. A long series of studies across several countries, beginning in San Francisco in 1969, shows unequivocally that communities become weaker as the volume of traffic on their streets increases.
I am haunted by a dream that I live in a country which is run by a government that was never elected; which is implementing a legislative program that was never put to the people at a general election; which consists of a second chamber that is unelected; which is commented upon by a media that is compliant; and which enjoys the support of those whose entitlements are mostly hereditary or, at least, class based and, therefore, natural to them and no one else.
Last night I went to a celebration of the Gay Liberation Front at Charleston called “A Gay Outing.” GLF was founded in London in 1970 one year after the Stonewall Inn riots in Manhattan, New York City. Charleston was the Sussex home of Vanessa Bell whose sister was Virginia Woolf. Charleston was a family home where what has become known as “Bloomsbury” artists, writers, intellectuals and others stayed. It was place in the first half of the twentieth century where people were free to have the heterosexual and homosexual relationships they wanted to have. And, therefore, an appropriate place to celebrate GLF.
The evening was particularly interesting because the panel discussion at the end of the program focussed on the origins and first days of the GLF and the context and times in which these events occurred. The discussion also contrasted that period with the present, including speculation under the ConDems coalition government whether any of the progress made for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people could be undone.
Listening to the discussion I was struck by the arc of time from what it was like to live in the UK as gay people in the 1970s to the present and how this span can be only fully appreciated when it is described by those who have lived it. I learnt from writing Animal Dharma that I believed at the time I got involved with the animal rights movement in the mid-1970s that I was in on its beginning. This, of course, is far from the truth as there was much that happened prior to my involvement. This was something I didn’t want to know and my adolescent arrogance wouldn’t have permitted. Today, I feel very differently and regret the animal rights movement pays very little attention to its past. This saddens me for no other reason other than we can learn from past mistakes which I see repeated all the time.
So, last night’s panel, which included historian Jeffrey Weeks, writer Elizabeth Wilson and transsexual activist Roz Kaveney, talked about how 40 years ago a radical GLBT social movement was born when GLF was founded. This discussion recognised, however, that there were individuals (e.g., Antony Grey) and organisations (e.g., Committee for Homosexual Equality) which pre-existed them but whose strategies were more focussed on legislative change and not on cultural and societal change as GLF was.
All of this led to a fascinating discussion about social movements and how they’re structured and organised, function and disfunction. I was intrigued by the comments made by Jeffrey Weeks about Antony Grey and CHE. He said his view of them had changed from 40 years ago when he thought they were conservative and irrelevant (my phrase, not his) to today when he recognised the vital and unique role they played as part of an essential comprehensive strategy. For example, GLF created the cultural space for people to love those of the same sex but CHE played a key role in helping to change the law so that same-sex among consenting adults became legal.
One of the panelists spoke about history moving forward “gradually and contradictorily.” This point rings so true for me. Further, I think it can be only appreciated with an understanding of the complex nature of social movements and how such a complex being as human society changes. We may well be on the cusp of a new time when the hard-fought for victories for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people are undone by a conservative government rolling back the state under the banner of alleged much-needed financial cutbacks. I was struck by Roz Kaveney who questioned the impact on transgendered people, who rely upon the National Health Service to meet their needs with surgery and medication, and the ConDem’s push to privatise the NHS. Some consolation was made in the remarks of one person who thought that the significant change in a positive cultural attitude toward gay issues could not be undone by any occasional but nonetheless determined political counter move.
What has all this got to do with the animal rights movement? Plenty. For a start, one speaker spoke last night about how diverse the gay world is today ranging from any number of polar opposites in political, social and economic perspectives. I thought this should be seen as a strength because it more accurately reflected the complexity of our society thereby making it more likely for it to move forward as one entity toward a progressive outlook. This diversity should, I think, be reflected in the animal advocacy movement. It’s strength is learning how to balance strategically and programmatically the utopian vision of animal rights on the one hand and the pragmatic politics of animal welfare on the other. It’s a tension where each side needs the other in order to move forward. There are always going to be those who are invested in one and attack the other. But I think an appreciation of each side’s strengths and weaknesses and how they could be complemented with insight and vision would make all the difference.
I left Charleston thinking that there are lessons we should learn from the past of not only those who campaign for animals but also those in other social movements like GLBT.
Last Friday evening at Canary Wharf I attended a large hustings meeting for the Labour leadership. All candidates were present and answered questions from the floor. There was very little disagreement between them. Just a few cases of personal sniping.
I’m trending toward one of Miliband brothers. If I had to pick one it would be Ed. Why? Simply because he seems less tainted by Labour’s Blair/Brown past. He’s also outspoken on the environment and was impressive as Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. But I think David Miliband would be also ok; however, he’s got some form with Labour’s negative past. This “form” may be minimal, however. Either of the Milibands is acceptable to me.
I’m least impressed with Ed Balls. My hunch is that he’s, well, let’s just say, difficult. Difficult people are important to have but they often lack leadership abilities. Their personalities are often divisive. I think Andy Burnham is impressive. He’s particularly strong on the National Health Service. I’m not sure he’s ready to be the party’s leader, however. I would like to see him run the Department of Health again. He proposed a National Care Service to complement the National Health Service when he ran the NHS. I like this idea a lot and would love to see it happen. It’s a good idea of what a “Big Society” should be but any “Big Society” proposed by the ConDems, as they are, is going to be a return to a Victorian society when charity was a major force. Simply, I can’t trust anything the ConDems propose or do which is in principle a good idea because the way they will implement it will stay resonate with old Tory and conservative values.
Diane Abbot spoke well at the hustings meeting. I liked how she blanked the BBC Radio 4 interviewer yesterday when asked yet again about sending her son to a private school. At the hustings she identified this as the most difficult decision she ever had to make. She’s a leader on the back benches helping to make sure the Labour Party and future Labour governments stay on track. In fact, I’d like to see her even more outspoken She’s capable of having a considerable influence as a progressive, independent voice for socialism.
One fundamentally important factor about making this decision is determining which of the candidates is best qualified to be able to lead Labour back into power as the national government. Of the candidates standing I think only one of the Milibands is capable of achieving this challenge. So, to conclude, I’m trending toward Ed but David would do.
…is it so crucial that bovine TB is eradicated? You might well ask. The true answer is that, health-wise for humans, it is not important at all. It’s all about money. The farming laws of Europe dictate that if any herd has had an infected cow in it, the herd cannot be sold in Europe. So farmers are up in arms because the value of their herd is at a stroke slashed as soon as there is a confirmed “breakdown”. But there is more. Farming is one of the most heavily subsidised industries in Britain. Even if the whole herd has to be slaughtered (which is rare), the farmer is compensated for all loss of income. So, again, why the fuss? As far as I can see, it’s about the government being able to show a profit from farming: it looks bad if it’s subsidising losses all the time. This is a key bit of emotive propaganda that is used to justify culling the poor old badgers. “The government is spending all this money – it can’t be allowed to go on …”
Guardian columnist Felicity Lawrence got to the heart of the matter in her recent column when she concluded, “In their Big Society [ConDem coalition] – which casts everything as personal responsibility – social injustice, like obesity, is indeed a moral failure, but only on the part of those who suffer it.” So, this morning’s news that the Food Standards Agency is to be abolished and folded into the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not surprising. Under the cover of the need to cut the country’s debt, which they claim is the responsibility of the previous Labour government while conveniently forgetting about the financial crisis caused by the “casino bankers,” the ConDems pursue an ideological agenda to privatise state programs like consumer protection and health care. What’s next? Slogans such as Your National Health Service is brought to you by Pepsi, BP and McDonalds.
Writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education Harold Fromm, visiting scholar in English at the University of Arizona, berates vegans and demonstrates shocking ignorance about what veganism means in theory and practice. Apparently, he’s author of The Nature of Being Human: From Environmentalism to Consciousness (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009) and co-editor, with Cheryll Glotfelty, of The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology (University Press of Georgia, 1996). These titles won’t be on my reading list, that’s for sure.
Unlike vegans, who are enlisted in an open-ended but futile metaphysic of virtue and self-blamelessness that pretends to escape from the conditions of life itself, vegetarians have more limited goals and have marked out a manageable territory with fewer cosmic pretensions. They are concerned about their health. Or they don’t want animals to be raised expressly to be tortured and killed—especially in factory farms and slaughterhouses—for their dinner plates. Or they don’t want to ingest the dead bodies of fairly complex creatures, which is apt to make them feel queasy. No doubt they would prefer all animals (whatever that might include) to be treated humanely, but they are not prepared to stop wearing leather shoes or eating Jell-O. At least vegetarianism—though it can’t resolve the moral dilemma of the savagery of our lives—is more or less possible in both theory and practice. Veganism, while perhaps harmless enough, especially if you don’t care about being part of society or alienating potential friends who may find you more trouble than you’re worth, fails on both counts. Furthermore, there are critics who explain that farming vegetables involves the killing of huge numbers of animals with plows, pesticides, and herbicides. And anyone who has grown a large home vegetable garden knows what raccoons, possums, rabbits, mice, birds, and deer can do to the veggies. Without a war on animals, there would be no vegetables for the vegans.
Many thanks to Jeannette for bringing this nonsense to our attention.
