Francesca Geloni's article (Beyond Speciesism. The Path to Total Liberation), published in issue 6 of Umanità Nova, has the great merit of summarizing some of the most important issues of anti-speciesism, citing key theoretical sources to inform a debate that has been ongoing for many years. This weekly magazine has published numerous contributions on the topic over time, all worthy of attention.
The fact that there is still a need to discuss the issues raised by anti-speciesists demonstrates that this debate is not yet over. Which, in many ways, is certainly a good thing.
On this topic, within the anarchist movement itself, we have often witnessed conflicting dynamics that, predictably, have only served to harden viewpoints, fomenting mutual incommunicability or, in the worst cases, open hostility between those who profess to be anti-speciesists and those who do not.
Yet, for years now, anti-speciesism has made inroads into the minds and hearts of many activists within the libertarian movement.
It is therefore a good thing, in my view, that anti-speciesist critique has rightfully entered the theoretical debate within anarchism, because it significantly enriches our cultural baggage and provides new tools for the metaphorical toolbox we carry around to transform society.
There are, however, some points I believe are worth reflecting on.
Every line of reasoning we make, every expression of thought, of who we are, of what we want to be, as well as our empathy for the plight of others, are all elements that bring us back to our humanity. The very fact that we care and raise ethical and practical questions about the fate of other species, their suffering, and their exploitation, refers us to capacities that qualify us and differentiate us from other species. Because while it's true that no animal wants to live in a cage, and no animal wants to suffer or die to satisfy our needs, it's equally true that questioning these needs is our prerogative.
However, we cannot deny that humanity has always built itself-both concretely and symbolically-through interaction with animals. This interaction is multifaceted, and not necessarily marked by violence. We share many things with many other sentient species, and we know well how strong emotional and affective connections can be established with animals.
However, there are intrinsic characteristics of our humanity that are unique to us.
Does this, then, place us on a higher level of a supposed hierarchy? Certainly not. Does this awareness authorize us to commit atrocities against other species? Certainly not.
Often, when addressing these topics, we resort to somewhat extreme examples that are used as dialectical cues to support our arguments. This is not the case, and I don't want to be misunderstood, but I'll reiterate the classic paradox with which one usually tries to embarrass the antispeciesist: "If in an emergency situation you have to choose between saving a newborn baby or saving a lamb, who do you save?" To this question, as banal as it is tendentious, the antispeciesist would probably have no hesitation in preferring the human being, as the bearer of a life plan and a complexity of interests that the lamb lacks. I would respond more immediately: I save the newborn baby because it is human like me.
I know perfectly well that a borderline case cannot and should not ethically justify everyday and ordinary cruelty towards animals, but it is also thanks to paroxysmal hypotheses that we can get to the heart of the matter.
Therefore, while we cannot consider the human species superior to others, we must nevertheless consider the "something" that makes us what we are, and nothing else. Our perspective is human, and we cannot ignore our species' particularity, our cognitive complexity, our uniqueness.
Does this awareness still authorize us to commit heinous acts against nature? Certainly not. On the contrary, it calls us to specific responsibilities. This assumption of responsibility, expressed in a desire for liberation from domination for the benefit of all living species, implies an action taken in the name, on behalf of, and in the interest of others. It is a unidirectional moral action because, for obvious reasons, animals and nature do not follow moral principles that are unique to us. Therefore, fighting for animal liberation, being the voice of the voiceless, is a task we can undertake only by virtue of who we are: cultural animals who, unlike other animals, know how to question themselves about how to be in the world.
According to the anti-speciesist approach, there is a common thread that ties together the various axes of domination. The same exclusionary pattern underlies all forms of discrimination and oppression, both those perpetrated between humans and those inflicted upon animals. Therefore, one cannot simply be anti-racist or anti-sexist without also being anti-speciesist.
Personally, I find it very difficult to equate, even philosophically, the struggles for human liberation with those for animal liberation, considering speciesism, by analogy, to be the same as racism or sexism.
Racism and sexism are unacceptable because they are based on arbitrary and instrumental distinctions that deny human dignity. They are expressions of discrimination rooted in social and institutional structures.
On the contrary, biological differences between species are scientifically established (although today we recognize more nuanced "boundaries" and multidisciplinary criteria for their definition), while, for example, it is scientifically established that human "races" do not exist. It is therefore not so automatic to apply the conceptual or moral categories that are specific to discrimination between humans to the animal world (or, more precisely, to our relationship with animals).
Our species-which is also a relational, cognitive, and ethical community-is the community of human beings. No matter how hard we try to include them, animals can never be part of it in the same way.
When we reason about freedom, oppression, ethics, and all that comes with them, our moral perspective can only be human. Prioritizing human interests does not mean placing the human species at the top of a hierarchy, but rather recognizing the importance of human beings for human beings. Not to mention that the preference given to members of one's own species is a rather natural fact, common to other species as well, further strengthened-in our case-by the emotional and psychological bonds that characterize the way we relate to one another.
It's not a question, therefore, of justifying oppression, but rather of not denying the uniqueness that is based on our qualities, on our ability to recognize ourselves within an ethical framework and to act as moral subjects. Recognizing who we are means prioritizing our own interests and those of our fellow humans. This doesn't mean rehabilitating the old, shortsighted anthropocentrism that has caused so much damage to the planet, but rather reaffirming the rationale for a non-anthropocentric humanism that considers the relationships between different life forms organically and morally.
In this sense, and given what has been stated so far, using nature and animals for our sustenance, for food, or for the protection of our very lives cannot, in itself, be considered an abuse. Rather, it is the predatory and anti-human nature of capitalism that is destroying the world. Life on the planet-human and non-human-is dramatically abused by the systemic violence of power, the class division of society, the private ownership of the means of production, wars, the reckless exploitation of environmental resources, and the all-consuming and all-devouring logic of profit. And it is precisely in defense of life and human dignity that anarchism stands, with its struggles and proposals.
Beyond my personal and questionable beliefs, I believe that anti-speciesism is nonetheless highly valuable for anti-authoritarian thought because, among other things, it emphasizes the importance of empathy as a compass that guides our behavior, because it expresses an extraordinary drive for coherence, and because it advocates a constant expansion of the beneficiaries of a moral sphere characterized by equality and freedom.
That said, I believe it's legitimate and possible-without declaring oneself anti-speciesist-to fight, for example, against factory farming, to challenge animal experimentation in scientific settings (where not strictly necessary), to adopt lifestyles marked by compassion, and so on. These choices, coupled with a necessary and uncompromising critique of capitalism and its modes of production and distribution, are both valid and respectable.
At the same time, however, I believe that anarchism is a theory of human freedom, conceived by human beings and proposed to humanity.
After all, human beings are the only ones capable-if they want-of becoming aware of their problems, of destroying power, of eradicating exploitation, of organizing themselves differently, of caring for nature, of disposing of it in the most reasonable and respectful manner possible, of inhabiting the world with the awareness of being part of it.
Alberto La Via
https://umanitanova.org/una-specie-speciale/
_________________________________________
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten