“Faultlines”
March 28th, 2009 2:28 pm by Kelly Garbato
Photo via kendiala
Lately, I’ve been thinking quite a bit about intersections: been speciesism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, colonialism, classism and (especially) sexism, and between animal liberation and other social justice movements.
While it’s become clear to me that all forms of prejudice and oppression are interrelated – and indeed, spring from the same well – what I find most vexing is how all these injustices first came about. Were nature and non-human animals subjugated first, followed by women and marginalized men, or were many of these rungs built into the social hierarchy at once? Which came first – organized religion, what with its oh-so-convenient justifications for mistreating the aforementioned “lesser” beings, or were these dogmas created after the fact, as a way of rationalizing and continuing these inequities? Did women as group resist when their brothers began to betray them en masse? Perhaps nature betrayed us as well, by “blessing” us with bodies that, on the one hand, are capable of bringing new life into this world – yet by the same token are vulnerable and ripe for exploitation? Why do men (and not a few women) seek to bully and oppress others? Why can’t we all just get along?
pattrice jones has touched upon this subject in her writings time and again. At the most basic level, she links the rise of pastoralism to that of the patriarchy. Take, for example, this exchange from an interview published in Vegan Voice:
Q. In Australia we have an appalling track record with regards to indigenous rights. How is racism shaped to some degree by animal exploitation.
A. I’m glad you asked about that, because it was my scholarly investigations into the origins of racism that led me to understand how speciesism is related various forms of oppression among humans. Basically, pastoralism (human dominion over animals) and patriarchy (male dominion over women) — which arrived on the historical scene together and cannot be separated — formed the template according to which all subsequent forms of exploitation would be patterned. It’s not an accident that people who are going to be exploited because of their religion, ethnicity, disability, or race are first “dehumanised” — the very act of subjugation is the act of forcing the target group into the category of “animal,” which means both “being without rights” and “object to be used.” You mentioned the Australian record with regard to indigenous peoples. The European conquests Australia offers a case in point concerning the use of the category “animal” to oppress a group of people. Indigenous people were, essentially, treated as just one more species of indigenous animal, to be exploited when possible and exterminated otherwise. The atrocities that were committed against indigenous peoples would be unimaginable were it not for a long history of treating living beings in exactly the same way. That history made it easy to just add indigenous people to the list of beings who may permissibly be enslaved, killed, or used without regard for their own aim and interests. As long as the category “animal” exists, it will be possible for some human animals to push other human animals over the line into it. If we are serious about ending the exploitation of people, then we have to get rid of the idea of a living being without rights, who can be exploited or killed at will. There’s more — much more — but that’s the gist of it.
In her contributions to Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals (2004) and Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth (2006), jones examines animal liberation in general (and direct action specifically) through a (anarcha~)feminist lens. In both pieces (“Mothers with Monkeywrenches: Feminist Imperatives and the Animal Liberation Front” and “Stomping with the Elephants: Feminist Principles for Feminist Solidarity”), she returns to the theme of intersecting oppressions, and in so doing she conjures up many of the same questions that have been dancing around in my head.*
In particular, this passage from “Stomping with the Elephants” scratches the surface of the problem – ever so slightly, as the issue is enormous – which might be the concept of “property” – ownership, of both the land, and the beings residing upon it:
How do you break a wild animal? The key can be found in the word itself: You sever connections.
To break or domesticate an animal you must first physically isolate the individual from the natural world. Then, you must cut all natural bonds to other animals by controlling sexual relations, interrupting the relationship between mother and child, and rupturing the structure of the extended family. You must alienate the animal from herself, so that she no longer expects her own will to control her own body. Finally, you must break the spirit, by humiliating and violating the animal in every possible way, including physical and sexual assault. [...]
We tend to think about sexism, speciesism, and environmental exploitation as separate, if sometimes intersecting or interlocking, problems. In truth, they are just symptoms of the same injury.
While we don’t have a word for this violation, we know it when we see it. It’s the fault line running underneath all of the social and environmental disruptions that plague us and the planet. You can read all about it in Genesis or the platform of the Republican Party: Men have the right and the duty to subdue the earth, the animals, their own families, and the men of other faiths. [...]
At the heart of the problem is alienation, separation, dissociation. [...]
To feel comfortable breaking the body or mind of another human or non-human animal, you must first wrench yourself out of the web of relationships that define ecosystems. [...]
Estrangement is both cause and consequence of the problem. We are cut off from the earth, other animals, each other, and ourselves. Those disconnections, in turn, allow us to do terrible things to the earth, other animals, each other, and ourselves. These actions increase the estrangement, and the cycle of violation and separation continue.
(pages 321-322; emphasis mine)
The process of “breaking” an animal described by jones can be applied with equal ease to both human and non-human animals:
It’s no accident that these are the same tactics used by abusive husbands to control their wives, or that analogous methods are used to bring wild plants under “cultivation.” After all, “husbandry” refers to the breeding of plants and “livestock,” while “grooms” are both breakers of horses and takers of brides.
(page 321)
Just as the megatheocorporatocracy severs connections between non-human animals – separating and alienating them from the earth, from the members of other non-human species, from their kin and family members, from their own children, even – and individual abusers sever connections between “their women” and the rest of the community, so too does the megatheocorporatocracy sever connections between women (and other marginalized human groups) and non-human animals. Sometimes, the abuse is painfully obvious, as when an abusive man employs threats of violence (and actual violence) against his partner’s non-human companions in order to maintain control over her. Usually, though, the abuse is more subtle – so banal, in fact, that it’s referred to as a “nutritionally sound” meal.
The answer is both plainly simple and painfully (or so it seems at time) complex: women – humans – will only experience true liberation when they’re joined by their non-human relatives. No one is free while others are oppressed.
* By the by, if you’re in need of some reading material, I highly recommend both Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals (2004) and Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth. They’re anthologies, so Dog knows it might be years before I actually finish and review them, but judging from what I have read thus far – awesomeness. jones’ essays alone are worth the price of admission.
——————
Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare books intersections intersection oppressions parallel oppressions speciesism misogyny sexism pattrice jones interview ecology feminism environment oppression patriarchy pastoralism language abuse violence animals and women
