Rutgers University
Animal Rights Law Center

-------------------------------------------------------

The following essay, "On the Meaning of Elitism" was prepared in response to "The Dangers of Elitism," written by Don Barnes of the National Antivivisectionist Society and printed in The Animal's Agenda vol. 15, no. 2. Barnes' essay was prompted by the position espoused by me, Tom Regan, and others that there are profound differences between the animal rights position, which rejects as morally unjustifiable all instances of institutionalized exploitation, and animal welfare, which seeks the regulation of exploitation. Agenda not only refused to publish our response to Barnes, but continues to print one-sided endorsements of animal welfare, such as Michael Giannelli's essay in vol. 18, no. 1.

Gary L. Francione
-----------------------------------------

On the Meaning of "Elitism"

The modern animal protection movement consists of two primary groups. Rightists maintain that animals, like humans, have certain rights and that these rights may not be violated even if doing so would make things better for others. Advocates of animal rights argue that animal exploitation should be abolished and not merely regulated.

Moreover, rightists are not merely theorists. On the contrary, rightists have a practical strategy for achieving the abolition that we all know will not happen overnight: each incremental step on the road to total liberation must itself represent the abolition of a particular practice. For example, a rightist seeks to abolish the battery cage and not merely to increase the size of the cages. A rightist never works to make slaughter laws more "humane" because she recognizes that "humane slaughter" is a contradiction in terms.

Animal welfarists, on the other hand, operate under completely different assumptions. Welfarism necessarily assumes that animals are the property of humans, that humans have an obligation to treat animals "humanely," and, as Peter Singer asserts, that animals have no rights to any particular treatment. Welfarists support laws such as the Federal Animal Welfare Act which does not provide any rights for animals. Rather, these statutes permit animals to be used for food or research as long as they are treated "humanely."

In the last issue of The Animals'Agenda, Don Barnes offers his views on the current state of the movement in an essay entitled "The Dangers of Elitism." He argues that: (1) the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare is irrelevant; (2) those who advocate for animal rights and who are critical of animal welfare are "elitist;" and (3) the contributions made by grassroots activists are only secondary to the important of national organizations and that grassroots criticism of national groups constitutes "grassroots elitism."

We believe not only that Barnes' view is mistaken, but that he presents a serious threat to the cause of animal rights.

First, Barnes claims that the rights and welfare ideologies "arrive at the same conclusion." Nothing could be further from the truth: the two theories are diametrically opposed. Animal rights theory maintains that animals have certain interests that cannot be sacrificed even if others benefit and even if the animals who are exploited are treated "humanely." By contrast, animal welfare permits the sacrifice of animal interests as long as others benefit and the animals who are exploited are treated "humanely."

For example, people have a right under the law to their liberty unless they commit a crime. The government cannot violate this right to liberty simply because others will benefit and even if the victim will be unjustly but "humanely" incarcerated. Similarly, if we believe that animals have rights, we are committed to the view that they, like us, have at least some interests that cannot be sacrificed even if others benefit and the sacrifice is performed "humanely." Animal welfarists reject this view.

What could be clearer than that these the ideologies do not "arrive at the same conclusion?"

Second, animal rightists, in Barnes' view are "elitist." The irony here is that it is animal welfare that can justly lay claim to the title of elitism.

Animal welfare is elitist in the true sense of that word because it reinforces the superior status of humans over animals. Animal welfarism maintains that exploitation of animals may be morally justified as long as humans do not inflict "unnecessary" suffering on animals, and "necessity" is invariably defined by welfarists in terms of human needs because animals are the property of people.

Animal rights, on the other hand, is a theory of radical egalitarianism. The animal right view categorically rejects the property status of animals as well as the doctrines of "humane" treatment and "unnecessary" suffering because they suggest that exploitation can be "humane" and thus reinforce the human oppression of nonhumans. The rightist calls continually for the end of animal exploitation, and, on a practical level, supports only those means to this end that are themselves respectful of animal rights. Such measures seek the abolition of particular and discrete forms of exploitation and incremental negation of the property status of animals.

Third, if there is anything that threatens the animal rights movement, it is Barnes' view that anyone who claims to want to "ease the suffering of other animals" is part of some unitary animal movement. The problem is that no one -- including animal exploiters -- would claim to be unconcerned about animal suffering. Take a look at the publications that are now being produced by such insidious organizations as American for Medical Progress and Putting People First. These groups all claim to embrace animal welfare, and to advocate the "responsible" and "humane" treatment of animals, and to be opposed to the "unnecessary" infliction of suffering. Sound familiar? And when both animal advocates and animal exploiters use the exact same language to describe their respective positions, the very existence of the movement is jeopardized.

Fourth, Barnes explicitly endorses yet another view articulated by our opponents. Barnes states that "[i]t is a safe bet that most animal advocates could not differentiate between the theories of different philosophers within the movement." According to Barnes, what motivates most advocates is their "compassion" for animals.

As we are all aware, those who exploit animals often claim that the animal movement is anti-intellectual and based solely on the emotional feelings of animal advocates. It is truly sad to see Barnes giving our opposition fodder for these accusations. Moreover, it is insulting to people in the grassroots to be told that unlike Barnes himself, they are so lacking in intelligence that they "could not differentiate between the theories of different philosophers within the movement." Talk about elitism.

Fifth, there is absolutely no reliable empirical evidence to suggest that animal welfare works to ameliorate the plight of animals. There is, however, plenty of evidence to suggest that the welfarist approach has done a great deal to reinforce institutions of animal exploitation by deceiving the general public into thinking that animals are used "humanely." Much of the public still believes that meat eating and vivisection are acceptable because complicated federal and state laws regulate these activities and supposedly ensure that animals are treated "humanely." Instead of confronting this attitude aggressively with the response that no vivisection or slaughtering is "humane," animal welfare perpetuates the idea that all we need to do is tinker a bit more with the mechanisms of exploitation to make them better and to (supposedly) lessen animal suffering.

Sixth, Barnes unfairly labels rights advocates as exhibiting "purer-than-thou" attitude. Assume that we form an organization that absolutely opposes rape and seeks laws that have sanctions so severe that this act of violence will be sharply curtailed if not eliminated. Assume further that someone seeks to join our organization and this person thinks that rape should be ended someday but that, in the meantime, the goal should be to secure laws that make rape more "humane." If Barnes is to be consistent and non-speciesist in his condemnation of elitism, he would have to claim that it is wrong to be "judgmental" and "purer-than-thou" about the person who favors "humane" rape.

Would anyone argue that it would be "elitist" to "judge" the notion of "humane" rape as immoral? Of course not. If rape is absolutely wrong, then so is "humane" rape and that is not an "elitist" position. Barnes admits that he irradiated monkeys for nineteen years. Is he saying that it would have been "elitist" for someone to have, during that time, "judged" his conduct as wrong? Perhaps someone should explain that "elitist" position to the monkeys that Barnes tortured and killed.

Barnes argues that it is "elitist" to criticize leaders of the "animal rights movement" if they are not vegetarians or vegans. But that is like saying that it is "elitist" not to allow racists to be leaders of the civil right movement --unless, of course, Barnes wants to explain why speciesism and racism are different for these purposes.

Seventh, Barnes, an employee of a large national organization, ends his essay with a criticism of what he calls, insultingly, "grassroots elitism." He urges all of us to join and worship the national organizations. It is odd that Barnes does not recognize the true elitism embodied in the notion that social change ought not to come from the grassroots, but should be directed by nation "animal rights leaders" many of whom have long lost touch with the concerns of the grassroots movement.

Barnes claims that the national organizations already help grassroots groups. Although some do, the amount of money given for this purpose is nothing relative to the millions of dollars that these groups have and the salaries and "benefits" that many movement leaders enjoy.

Although some national organizations have worked very hard to promote the self reliance of the grassroots, many more of these groups have discouraged independent grassroots activism unless the national can make a grand entry at the last moment and usurp credit and media exposure for fundraising purposes. Moreover, some of these national groups are now actively seeking to marginalize the rights position even as they employ the rhetoric of "animal rights." Such actions are misleading at best, dishonest at worst. Whichever it is, grassroots activists deserve, and should demand, something better.

Anna E. Charlton
Co-Director & Staff Attorney, Rutgers Animal Rights Law Center

Priscilla N. Cohn
Professor of Philosophy, Penn State University.

Gary L. Francione
Professor of Law, Rutgers University Law School

Tom Regan
Professor of Philosophy, North Carolina State University
______________________________________________________

For more analysis of animal rights and animal welfare in the modern animal protection movement, see Gary L. Francione, Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement, (Temple University Press: Philadelphia, PA 1996) .

One world, One humanity, One family!