A journal of animal liberation
Volume 1, Number 1
Winter 1979/80Contents:
What is this?—Page 1
The Trouble With Animal Welfare Organizations—Page 6
Notes—Page 13Published quarterly. Copyright © 1979 by
Edited and published by Jim Mason.Editorial Board:
Debra Alexander, Jill Fleming, Patrice Greanville, Doug Moss.
*(Latin. Things to be done) Memoranda;
list or program of things to be done or acted upon.
What is this?
(You are probably asking yourself.) Another newsletter from another new animal welfare organization?
We hope not. We are trying to start a publication that will serve as a forum for discussion of problems and issues facing the animal liberation movement. We think the need for it is obvious, considering the recent surge of interest in this cause. In the past four years, we have seen the publication of Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation; the spread of animal rights activism in England, Europe, Hawaii, New York City, on the ice floes off Newfoundland, and in the open ocean; the occurrence of animal rights symposia beginning with the one at Cambridge University in 1977; the establishment of animal rights courses on American college campuses and the advocacy of broad animal protective legislation by both major political parties in England. These are some of the indicators that something new is afoot. We believe that we are entering a new phase of development of the centuries-old notion that other animals are entitled to justice, respect, and other moral considerations.
Meanwhile, our movement is still in disarray. We should be doing much more to pull together toward formation of a cohesive, international political force. We emphasize the word ‘toward’ because we realize that we cannot have instant, arbitrary unity. As in any other progressive movement, there are many differences about what should be done and how it should be done. It will take time to work through these, but not as long as it will take if we don’t begin the discussing and the work. There are substantial disagreements among us about the rationale for, and the goals of animal rights/liberation. There is even argument, for example, over whether we should characterize the cause as a movement for animal “rights” or for animal “liberation.” There are major disagreements, too, about tactics and strategies.
The list of arguments and disagreements within our movement is long, but that should be no excuse for cynicism and inaction. These attitudes or resignation serve only to perpetuate the status quo of human tyranny over other animals.
The purpose of this publication is to provide a forum for continuous and rigorous discussion that would cost a fortune if we all tried to carry it on at meetings and symposia. A publication like this one can provide a relatively cheap way to discuss problems, settle issues, trade ideas, and do other things that make for a more effective, progressive movement.
As we write this, we realize that it may sound pretentious to claim to be able to do all of this with mere ink on paper. But it isn’t pretentious or unrealistic. Every movement worth its salt has had at least one theoretical journal for the exchange of ideas among its advocates. Traditionally, these journals have provided communication of the basic ideas and information from which change is engineered. Come to think of it, many of us have been carrying on in our letters to each other the kinds of discussion that should be in a publication for others to share.
Let us be more specific about what we have in mind for this publication:
1. Initially, at least, we will probably simply photocopy submissions and mail them to others on our mailing list. You can help us cut down on the labor and expense involved in publication if you will observe the following rules:
- Make your letters, notes, articles, etc., as brief as possible. Edit your own work before you send it in. We won’t have space for long, rambling, disorganized pieces.
- Send all material typed on paper this size (6-1/2 by 8-1/2 inches; one-half legal size). Allow one-inch margins at the top and bottom and 3/4-inch margins at the sides of each page. Do not number your pages on the typed side; pencil in page numbers on the back of each page.
- Make sure that all copy is neat, clean, corrected, and suitable for reproduction.
If these rules seem onerous, let us know. Perhaps when we get things moving we can have a typist do this work, but for now…
We plan to get out the next issue around the first of March, 1980. Please try to get your submissions to us by February 1, 1980.
2. Who is on “the list?” That is for you to decide. Should the publication be open to anyone? If not, who decides who should receive it? We don’t think it should be a secret journal, but we don’t foresee wide-open distribution to the general public, either. We have made up the mailing list for this first issue from people with whom we usually write on animal issues. This mailing went out to about 80 people. If you know of others who might want to receive mailings, please tell us.
3. Who is “behind this?” Who is paying for this publication? The idea for this kind of journal has been knocking around in my (Jim Mason) mind since I came back from the RSPCA symposium at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1977. I am sorry that its publication has been put off so long. With your participation, perhaps we can make up for lost time.
To help ward off the tendency toward single-mindedness, I (J.M.) asked four friends and animal rights advocates to serve on an editorial board. Inevitably, though, questions about editorial policy and content will be put forth. The board and I welcome these and we will try to handle them as they come up in the next few issues. Eventually, we may want to expand the editorial board to include people from other geographical areas and people with greater experience in the movement—if we can work out the usual communications hindrances caused by distance, mail delays, expenses, etc.
The costs of publication for this issue, including printing and postage, ran about $65.00. These expenses were paid by the editor and the editorial board. In the future, if interest grows and circulation increases, we will try to arrive at a subscription rate to cover these costs.
4. In your communications to us, please put material not for publication on separate paper so-marked. Or, if you don’t want your name or address published in connection with a piece, please say so. If you have any such restrictions, be sure to spell them out to us.
5. For the first issue or so, we will try to publish everything submitted. Eventually, we may be forced to exercise editorial discretion or ask authors to make cuts or changes. We will try to keep things loose for a few issues until we arrive at a suitable policy and format.
6. We think this publication should not be used for angry, vindictive denunciations. This sort of communication is divisive. We can debate and discuss more effectively and constructively if papers are written with a view toward responsible criticism. Therefore, would it be too quaint or crusty to request that all correspondence be polite, conscientious, and done in a comradely spirit?
7. We want to publish articles, essays, or papers that discuss the questions and problems—both theoretical and practical—that our movement faces. We want to publish short notes describing a new book, film, play, television program, etc., or relating some event or development of significance to our movement. We will also publish letters to the editor responding to material in this journal or offering criticism or suggestions.
8. To get things rolling, we suggest that articles, essays, etc., address and discuss the following questions (please contribute your own suggestions and we will publish them):
- What is the state of our movement? What are its significant recent victories? Its mistakes? What are its shortcomings? (See essay below.) What trends show promise?
- How should we proceed against the various abuses and forms of exploitation? Should we go after specific abuses where success is likely? Or does this fragment the movement and obscure the basic problem of speciesism in our perspective on the natural world?
- How does our cause, our movement, stand with respect to the prevailing economic and political situation in the rest of the world? Are we a part of the other causes, are we in a class all by ourselves, or are other causes a part of our more comprehensive, far-reaching search for ethics?
- Strategies and tactics—what is wrong or right—with the familiar tactics of lobbying, demonstrating, distributing literature, etc.? Would English-style activist tactics of laboratory-smashing, victim liberation, and hunt sabotage further the movement in the United States?
We would appreciate any suggestions from you concerning format, contents, periodicity, etc. Please bear in mind that our main interest is in putting out a simple, useful journal. We are not Oxford Press; we are not The New York Times.
The trouble with animal welfare organizations: Why are they the way they are?
As we are all painfully aware, our movement is presently fragmented into an archipelago of animal welfare organizations (AWOs) with each an island unto itself holding its own perfect vision of what cruelty to animals is and what should be done about it. I don’t have the space here to go into an exhaustive critique of these groups, but I will try to explain some of the factors that contribute to this fragmentation and its paralysis of our movement.
Let me say at the outset that this is not intended to be another vindictive diatribe against AWOs and everything they have done. I am not arguing that they are the “bad guys” of the movement, possessed of malicious motives and out for personal gain at the expense of animals. A few may fit this description and, in time, they may be identified. My point here is not to look for those few and, by pointing the finger at them, to brand the entire spectrum of AWOs (as some AWO critics tend to do). My objective is to look at AWOs in general and see if there are some common denominators that are contributing to the state of our movement. We should try to understand the problems with AWOs, not to accord them sympathy or to excuse their behavior, but to be able to work with (or around) them more effectively. We need not, if we understand what makes them tick, keep repeating the same mistakes over and over in our dealings with them and their leaders. At the same time, if we understand the forces behind their behavior, we may be able to bring about positive changes in that behavior.
Most AWOs have fought well against animal abuse considering their resources, their opposition, the age we live in, and other circumstances. But even the best of them have had a sadly limited success in reducing the level of exploitation of animals. This has been so, I believe, chiefly because of shortcomings in their philosophical perspectives and because of the structure and situation of AWOs.
First, the problem of perspective. Until quite recently, most animal welfare organizations worked from a concept of “cruelty” with the result that only the most “cruel” abuses of animals were targets of attack. “Cruelty,” like “obscenity,” is an idealization and hence hard to define and communicate to members of the public whom we want to join our movement. And, like obscenity, much of what is “cruel” is in the eye of the beholder. It leaves us open to endless disputes of definition over what is “cruel” and so forth. Granted that the word “cruelty” may be useful on occasion as shorthand—in expressions such as “cruelty in farming” or “cruelty in research.”
But its use as a rationale builds confusion into our arguments against animal exploitation. It is a hazy concept and as such it provides a base on which to lay the foundations for a movement the essential purposes of which are much more far-reaching than the prevention of cruelty to animals.
Many of us have long felt that our movement has been lacking the theoretical basis needed to permit accurate analyses of human/animal relations and to provide a basis for ethical obligations in those relations. As a result, we have been without a solid, compelling rationale for the changes we urge. Our theoretical void leaves us also without any understanding of the obstacles to these changes; we are unable to plan effective strategies and tactics. In brief, we have been floundering.
This theoretical gap came into focus and closed considerably with the publication of Peter Singer’s book, Animal Liberation. Although Singer forcefully documented the numerous cruelties inflicted on farm animals and animals used in science, he did not stop there to rest on the expectation that we would be outraged and moved to make changes. The mere documentation approach has been used without substantial success by AWOs since they came into being in the 19th century. This approach depends almost entirely on outrage as a motivator—and outrage is, at best, merely a temporary condition—if and when it occurs in humans. Moreover, the capacity for outrage has become increasingly eroded in the late 20th Century world of imminent nuclear disaster, routine environmental despoilation and persistent social inequities.
No, Singer put forth a more compelling case against existing relations between humans and animals. He explained how the rationale for present oppression of animals is composed of lies and myths, that it is out of whack with proven facts about animals and that it is wholly inconsistent with established notions of fairness, justice, and other ethics. Animal Liberation explained that our treatment of animals is like any other form of tyranny or oppression in that it reduces living, feeling creatures to mere things to be used for our supposed benefit with no regard for theirs. Singer pointed out that we have no good reason for doing so; we do so simply because of habit or perceived benefit and because we can get away with it.
Singer, then, advanced our philosophical perspective on ethical problems stemming from human uses of other animals a substantial step beyond the limitations of the anti-cruelty rationale. The job ahead is to advance it further still—both the theory and the implementation of it.
Singer’s contribution, though, raises new questions: Why aren’t humans ethically consistent? Why don’t we follow the rules? If reason and logic tell us that animals should be given the same ethical considerations as any other person, why don’t people wake up and do so? What are the obstacles to full implementation of the theory? Animal Liberation provides us with better weapons and ammunition for our battle for justice in our relations with other animals, but it does not provide us with soldiers, maps, and field strategies.
For this reason, Animal Liberation has had the effect of stimulating conferences, animal rights courses, and much interest among the public, but it has not had much effect on AWOs. To be sure, a few AWOs (Society for Animal Rights, Friends of Animals, and various small groups) have issued statements adopting the principles of the book as their guiding philosophy. Most, however, have hung back—probably because the book’s disciplined, honest, radical approach takes them “too far” into the problem. Even the few AWOs that have “adopted” animal liberation principles have done so merely verbally without making any real changes in their policies, campaigns, and methods.
Why, then, are AWOs doing business as usual in the midst of an improving climate for animal concerns? The reasons for this stagnation grow out of the structure and situation of AWOs. The more familiar (and regrettable) characteristics common to groups—whether local or international—are bickering, in-fighting, self-laudation, possessiveness of issues, and self-indulgent campaigning. These have produced a badly fragmented movement—a constellation of AWOs, each going in its own direction. Experiences in working with or for them have left people badly burned with the result that bitterness, cynicism, mistrust, and other attitudes have spilled over to the rest of the movement. As a result, our potential for influence is dissipated and progress is stalled.
Now nearly everyone knows this and complains about it, but what can be done about it? First, I think we have to try to understand the sources of this behavior. Much of it arises out of the situation of AWOs with respect to laws governing charitable activities, to the sources of their financial support, and to the unpopularity and subversiveness of the cause itself.
AWOs are structured as charitable corporations. As such, they are limited in what they can do about the conditions of which they complain. Charities were never set up to bring about sweeping social or cultural changes; they exist largely to alleviate social problems that government officials and others in power won’t address—either out of obtuseness or conflicting interests. Charities are given a special perch. They get license and protection so long as they do their allotted job. They are allowed to exist, but they are not allowed to grow teeth and claws. As everyone knows, there are scores of laws and regulations that control the activities of charitable organizations.
The lifeblood of AWOs is tax-deductible donations from supporters. To keep that flowing, AWOs must have tax-exempt status for donors to legally deduct amounts donated from income. If an AWO strays out of its area of activity prescribed by law, it can lose its tax-exempt status and its financial support. Because the animal welfare concern has not had broad, popular support, AWOs, like charities in general, but perhaps to a greater degree than most, have had to rely on a few wealthy patrons and matrons for financial support. Uncertainties in these relationships with their supporters have taken their toll on AWO integrity; they have influenced decisions about policies, priorities, activities, and all of the work against exploitation of animals. If, for example, a wealthy backer has a pet peeve—a favorite abuse—his or her AWO is sure to devote a large portion of its resources to it. Or, if the sympathetic, money-donating public is aroused most by some remote abuse that does not affect their habits (e.g., cockfighting, rodeo, or hunting), the AWO will campaign primarily against one or more of those. As a result, AWO campaigns tend to be geared more for high visibility (to attract donors) than for effectiveness. Granted that most AWO leaders have high ideals and sincere motivations, but the money hustle so basic to the organization’s survival necessarily pervades all levels of its activities and often overrides the best of intentions.
The scramble for support leads to other problems which affect the way in which organizations and people relate to each other. Specifically, competition for the limited supply of animal welfare donor dollars pits organizations and their leaders against each other. Leaders become possessive about their work fearing that others will “steal their ideas” and take the credit needed to keep the donations coming. There are other factors involved, of course, some having to do with the peculiarities and personalities of AWO leaders themselves. There is, for example, a “founder’s syndrome” found in AWO heads who feel that because they built an organization from scratch and kept it going over the years, they have a monopoly or prior claim on concern for animals. They tend also to treat the AWO and its staff like their own private property to be managed according to their personal whims. Some of this behavior may be common among all leader types, but AWO leaders have had, I think, a very special kind of personal experience. Many of them have had to cope with the social isolation, ridicule, and constant frustration that falls upon those who struggle for unpopular or subversive causes. Don’t forget that humans are animals, too, and, as such, we are affected by experiences like these.
Where, then, does all of this leave us? Should we fight AWOs? Ignore them? Reform them?
We should not get neurotic about their shortcomings as some of us who are outside AWOs tend to do, but we should not expect drastic improvements in their work as long as the conditions discussed above exist. I’m sure this last conclusion comes as no great news to most of you who are already working independently. However, I think we should be careful about making a thing of working around AWOs or of showing them the proper way of doing things; we may only add to divisiveness and fragmentation. It may happen soon, as it seems to be happening in England, that more and more AWOs will “come around,” start cooperating, and lend their potentially enormous influence to the struggle for animal liberation or animal rights.
In the meantime, there may be ways to work with AWOs in spite of their limitations. There are, for example, many conscientious, progressive people on their staffs who, although they have little power over policies and strategies, are willing to exchange ideas and information and do movement-building work in general. A network of such people could do much to build cooperation and forge integration of the movement even though this work is beyond their AWOs narrow aims. In fact, such a network is already operating in England with some success (see Notes: Coordinating Animal Welfare).
A definitive analysis into the complex of factors contributing to the present state of fragmentation and stagnation on the American side of our movement and workable plans for progress beyond this state will take much more time and space than I have here. I hope I have made my point that now is the time to begin this work. I hope also that this journal can serve as one of the workplaces.
Jim Mason
November 1979
NOTES
If we are to successfully fill out the theoretical base for our movement and build strategies on it, we will need the commitment of a greater number of people with knowledge, experience, and the capacity for analysis. When we face tasks like these, it makes no sense to ignore or skip lightly over the hard work of the few who have already demonstrated this commitment; we should try to know what they are doing and thinking. We should do this not out of respect or admiration, but because their works are the bricks and mortar of our building effort. Without these, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes, work through the same problems, answer the same questions, and generally go in circles over and over.
Anyone who seriously intends to participate in movement-building should at the very least read the basic literature and keep up on developing issues and events relating to our cause. Certain books and periodicals should be required reading. We list here those that we think are essential; if you think we have left out important ones, let us know for the next issues.
First of all, we assume that everyone knows about these books:
Godlovitch, Godlovitch and Harris, Animals, Men and Morals (New York: Taplinger, 1972)
Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (Avon Books, paperback)
Tom Regan and Peter Singer, Animal Rights and Human Obligations (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976)
Next most important, we think, are:
Mary Midgley, Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978). This book takes off from Midgley’s essay, ‘The Concept of Beastliness’ contained in Regan and Singer’s Animal Rights and Human Obligations, and goes on to many other issues arising out of our relations with other animals. She trounces on prevailing notions about animals and animal nature and she criticizes the trendy notions of human nature put forth by B.F. Skinner, E.0. Wilson, and others.
David Paterson and Richard D. Ryder, eds., Animal Rights: A Symposium (London: Centaur Press Ltd., 1979). This book contains the papers presented at the two-day symposium sponsored by the RSPCA at Trinity College, Cambridge, in August, 1977. The authors include Richard Ryder, Brigid Brophy, Maureen Duffy, Ruth Harrison, and John Harris. The book costs 6.50 and can be ordered from Centaur Press, Fontwell, Sussex, England.
Periodicals:
Coordinating Animal Welfare (CAW) Bulletin, P.O. Box 61, Camberley, Surrey, England. CAW is “intended to provide a link between those who actively and realistically seek to minimize animal suffering, and thereby increase their effectiveness. The link is provided by regular informal meetings in London and the circulation of a bulletin… CAW was not set up to criticize and discredit animal welfare societies, but lend weight, as members of these societies, to constructive criticism and the rebuttal of outmoded tactics which have seen over the years to do little to help the plight of defenseless creatures.”
CAW is a movement-building association of animal rights activists in England. If you want to keep up with the latest news from the English front of the movement, send for their Bulletin. Be sure to send $5 or more to help with printing and mailing costs.
The Beast, “the magazine that bites back,” Clanose Publishers, Ltd., 2 Blenheim Crescent, London, W11, England. The subscription form says 3.00 for one year (6 issues), but we think Americans should send a few dollars more to cover airmail rates. The magazine is brand new and is dedicated to the animal liberation movement. It features articles about animal activist efforts around the world.
