I'm trying to respond to some of the suggestions raised in the article "Anti-speciesism to End All Injustice, " published in issue 11 of Umanità Nova , because I feel it's necessary to clarify some aspects. While announcing now that I won't be speaking further, I hope the debate can continue with the contributions of other comrades or readers of this newspaper. ---- What anti-speciesism seems to miss is that human complexity, while not the only complexity in living things, is nonetheless our own, and we cannot ignore this.
Once again, equating the recognition of diverse human cultures with that of distinct species characteristics is something I find fundamentally forced, if not downright ideological. Our capacity to experience species differences is part of our more comprehensive faculty of judgment and evaluation. I have never argued that human cognitive prerogative is the exclusive criterion of moral value because, within the complexity of the human being, I have clearly included (and it could not be otherwise) all the emotional, relational, and cultural baggage through which we recognize our fellow human beings.
I agree that, starting from the recognition that differences exist, progressive work must be aimed at destroying the presumed validity of the reasons underlying discrimination based on those differences. This ethical tension is so reasonable and understandable that, in my opinion, it can dare to go even further: the destruction of differences themselves, wherever possible. And when is this possible? As I see it, the destruction of differences (understood as discrimination) only makes full sense when it comes to human beings. And for me, this is non-negotiable, in any way. Conversely, even if we wanted to extend our sphere of moral recognition to other living species, we would always find ourselves faced with an insurmountable boundary constituted by humanity itself, that is, the community of human beings who recognize themselves in what they are.
Upon closer inspection, then, nationalism, racism, and sexism are discriminatory criteria that only a superficial glance can justify on the basis of real differences. However, we know full well that these are merely specious approaches that can be easily refuted based on countless considerations: biological, political, and above all ethical. Once the supposed differences between human beings are demolished, what remains intact is humanity itself.
This is where any analogy with "speciesism" reveals its limitations. If we change the subjects of our discussions, it's absolutely logical to change our approach because, quite simply, it's a matter of understanding what can and cannot be compared. In school, when we were taught mathematics, the classic expression "apples to apples, pears to pears" was often used to emphasize the need to reason about comparable quantities or, in philosophical terms, about logically compatible entities or categories.
It really struck me to read in an anarchist newspaper that criticizing capitalism is equivalent to using it as a "lightning rod," given that the origin of radical problems should be sought elsewhere.
Far from uncritically embracing a Marxist view of social and economic dynamics, I firmly believe that capitalism constitutes a major obstacle to humanity's emancipation from slavery, inequality, and domination. At the same time, shifting the burden of responsibility for this devastating and pervasive system onto individual consumers seems to me to be a truly dangerous move. Of course, each of us can and must do our utmost to be consistent with our own feelings and beliefs, provided we recognize that this is not always easy, especially when we find ourselves in conditions of extreme pressure or need.
Precisely because of capitalism (which may be a "symptom," but a truly serious one), billions of people around the world have no choice, in many respects, and I bet that many people, faced with the possibility of eating more and better, would not hesitate for a moment at the opportunity to eat a steak.
I could be wrong, but in a capitalist system, the true privilege lies precisely in the freedom to forgo that steak. Absolutely.
I may assume my share of responsibility (or complicity, some would say) in maintaining the capitalist system when I decide to go grocery shopping, but I expect others to do the same. If going to the supermarket and buying a cutlet is a counterrevolutionary act, I believe going to the same supermarket to buy a package of tofu is equally questionable. Until we all completely or at least partially abandon the machinery of capitalism to revolutionize our lives, starting with a self-managed and liberated economy, we will hardly be able to impart lessons in consistency and integrity.
I don't know if "once profit is abolished and the means of production are socialized, humanity will finally be able to awaken to a reality of self-determination, freedom, and equality." When in doubt, as an anarchist, I am committed precisely to this goal, or at least I address the issue not only of consumption, but also of the structural modes of production and distribution of the goods essential to everyone's life. As an anarchist, therefore, I necessarily address the issue of social transformation in order to dismantle capitalism and its destructive effects.
Even if I'm deaf or blind to the needs of animals, I remain perplexed by the recognition of ethics within the animal kingdom. If such ethics exists, it's certainly not human ethics. Many species are based on hierarchy, competition, and predation. How could we give voice or moral status to behaviors that are undoubtedly natural but conflict with our principles?
In nature, "dominance" between species exists, and without our intervention in nature, humans would have become extinct long ago.
I confess, however, that I'm a bit taken aback. The article rightly challenges the validity of biology as the sole criterion for moral evaluation. At the same time, however, it extols the extraordinary biological capabilities of certain species (dolphins' sonar, octopuses' intelligence, etc.) and emphasizes how our capacity for empathy is biologically determined by our mirror neurons.
For my part, I can only reiterate the concept that the complexity of the human being cannot and must not be reduced to exclusively biological considerations because, by doing so, we risk making huge blunders.
Among these, evoking with some regret a mythical golden age in which "we were fully aware of the environment in which we moved in a harmonious relationship with both nature and its own psycho-physical needs, exactly like any other living being" without it being "necessary to invent laws, hierarchies, domination, economics, competition" is a gross error that ignores the more recent anthropological debate (including libertarian ones), which has now transcended the old idea that hierarchies were an inevitable consequence of the birth of agriculture, settled living, or great civilizations. In human evolution (which has been much less linear and much more experimental than one might think), different cultures have calibrated the relationship between humans and animals in many different ways, often deifying them or considering them "non-human persons" to be used, perhaps with many excuses and many prayers, for sustenance and life. After all, even the ancestral harmony between humans and nature has never been entirely free from an inevitable asymmetry of interests.
The proper yardstick for applying our ethical and moral guidelines is not the ability of individuals to implement them, but the composition of the moral community to which we refer. Any comparison, undoubtedly paradoxical, between animals at the mercy of human domination and people with severe cognitive deficits who, as such, would risk being excluded from those same ethical guidelines is unacceptable to me. Rather, it would be worth remembering that, with an example of this kind, it was Peter Singer himselfone of the greatest theorists of anti-speciesismwho argued that, in extreme situations, the interests of a healthy animal would prevail over those of a human being in a vegetative state.
Ultimately, I believe that from a moral perspective, the anti-speciesist approach suffers from a tendency toward abstraction that is difficult to reconcile with the very idea of morality. It's not, I repeat, about establishing the superiority of human beings but about recognizing their uniqueness. Morality is human because it is an exquisitely human fact, shaped by human experience, and confirmed by our humanity. If we tried to completely eliminate the human point of view in order to be "impartial" in our approach to all living things, we would end up destroying morality itself.
I'm sorry to disappoint my interlocutor, but I reiterate that it is possible to fight, for example, against intensive farming even without sharing the theoretical framework of anti-speciesism.
The motivations for this struggle can be found in the critique of capitalism, in the appreciation of the resources wasted to maintain a certain type of economy, in the realization that it makes no sense to sacrifice millions of animals when we could do without them, in the horror felt at the suffering inflicted on factory farms. And this horror can easily be separated from an anti-speciesist perspective.
These assessments stem from a moral perspective that is human and will always be oriented toward the primary satisfaction of human interests. From an anarchist perspective, satisfying human interests means raising, once again, the question of revolution to overthrow economic exploitation and political domination in pursuit of true social emancipation.
When we talk about consistency, we enter very difficult territory where it's easy to use moral judgment as a blunt instrument. The problem is that this consistency, if not handled with a certain amount of caution and a healthy dose of humility, risks backfiring.
When I say that the equation between "speciesism" and discrimination between humans such as racism and sexism is unsustainable, I immediately think of our militancy and what we do every day.
As for me, I could never share the same organizational space with those who advocate racism or sexism. I could barely even have a coffee at a bar with some people, let alone engage in politics together. Yet, for years now, in our groups, our collectives, our organizations, anti-speciesists have shared the same spaces, building common initiatives, being an integral part of the movement, sitting at the tablerubbing elbowswith comrades who eat ragù during lunch breaks between meetings.
How do they do it? One of two things: either anti-speciesists have a stoic capacity to tolerate the intolerable (despite their much-desired coherence), or they toodeep downknow that, all things considered, a "speciesist" can never be considered the same as a racist. It is therefore clear that any analogy between speciesism and all forms of human discrimination is the result of an extremely weak operation, not only in its theoretical foundations but also in its practical implications.
"What kind of anarchy do we want, represent, and build?" A significant question that I will try to answer. First of all, my understanding of anarchy is deeply rooted in a sense of mutual respect and recognition of others' positions (provided, of course, they are compatible with certain minimum reference values).
I found the opening line used in the article in response to my intervention truly unfortunate. It's described as "an almost perfect example of a rhetoric that presents itself calmly, professes openness to change, recognizes the value of others' criticism, and then, elegantly, puts everything back in its place. Some might call it reactionary rhetoric, and rightly so."
The term "reactionary" is a very serious one and should usually be reserved for political adversaries, not comrades. Nevertheless, I preferred to address some issues on the merits because I found them interesting and because I value a frank and open debate much more than the temptation to respond inappropriately to an insult that completely defies the most basic libertarian grammar.
Such a dismissive judgment, after all, reveals a lot about an attitude that's still widespread in certain circles. In any case, I will continue to treasure the ethical and political insights offered by anti-speciesism, despite some anti-speciesists.
So, what kind of anarchy do we want? This is a very, very long discussion.
I believe that anarchy will be created by the oppressed who know how to organize themselves. If, for example, somewhere in the world, ten, a hundred, or a thousand communitieslarge or smallof fishermen or farmers want to continue fishing or raising livestock outside of any capitalist logic or political domination, that will undoubtedly be their anarchy.
As I see it, even at the risk of appearing anachronistic, I'll play it safe and quote Errico Malatesta, also because it seems to me that there is nothing better than wanting "bread, freedom, love, science" for everyone.
If then, in the construction of libertarian communism, someone wants to put salami among that bread, I certainly won't be the one to rebuke them.
Alberto La Via
https://umanitanova.org/territori-accidentati-ancora-su-specismo-e-antispecismo/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten