A Question for Animal Rights Activists

Forum: Strap-on.org
Date: 12/31/2001

Personally I do not buy "animal rights" (although this is not speciest because I do not buy "human rights" either), but I feel that the biggest problem I've felt with animal rights activists (as well as environmental activists) is not that they are too militant, but that they are pushing for agenda on someone else's (animals, forest, etc.) behalf or representing someone else's interests, when they can't actually communicate with those that they are trying to advocate for.

Other activists sometimes do purport to speak for others also (e.g. Western feminists' movement to liberate Afghan women, middle-class liberals' advocacy of homeless people, etc.) but when they are speaking for *humans* there is a chance that these activists can be held accountable because humans can respond and criticize their "advocates" when their actions deviate from the actual needs of the people being advocated. I feel that animal rights activism and environmental activism are more likely to become self-righteous and dogmatic, not because activists involved in these issues are less intelligent or ethical, but because of this structural lack of checks and balances.

In *environmental justice* activism, you are directly accountable to not just the environment or animals that live there, but a community of people - who can and will call out "you are so full of shit!" when the actions of their "advocates" begin to stray from what the community actually wants to see happen. Animals will not give feedbacks in the same manner, which is why animal rights activism run a higher risk of becoming self-righteous.

My question to animal liberation folks is how you can create mechanisms (and I do believe that we need mechanisms, rather than relying on individual ethics) to hold their members/sympathizers accountable to their actions. If I'm missing something here, please let me know.

emigrl

-----
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.