Planet Debate 2011 September/October l-d release Animal Rights
AT: “Rights Talk Bad” - Permutation
Download 1.43 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT: “Rights Talk Bad” - Permutation
AT: “Rights Talk Bad” - PermutationPERMUTATION SOLVES – CRITICISMS OF RIGHTS DON’T JUSTIFY REJECTING RIGHTS OR THE LAW Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 241-2 Fear of a new myth of rights should not lead us to discard legal practices. While it is tempting for activists seeking social transformation to throw out the old and bring in the new, such a strategy involves significant costs. And the fear of a new myth of rights should not provide the sole justification for scholarly dismissal of rights. Scholars who may find it easy, in the abstract, to dismiss the old should not forget the tangible and significant benefits offered by rights and litigation. On the contrary, scholars should reevaluate the potential gains to be made as a result of legal activism and an extension of rights language. Indeed, scholars should, and with critical reflections, consider the advice of Patricia J. Williams: ”In discarding rights altogether, one discards a symbol too deeply enmeshed in the psyche of the oppressed to lose without trauma and much resistance. Instead, society must give them away. Unlock them from reification by giving them to slaves. Give them to trees. Give them to cows. Give them to history. Give them to rivers and rocks. Give to all of society’s objects and untouchables the rights of privacy, integrity, and self-assertion; give them distance and respect. Flood them with the animating spirit which rights mythology fires in this country’s most oppressed psyches, and wash away the shrouds of inanimate object status, so that we may say not that we won gold, but that a luminous gold spirit owns us.” (1987, 433) MUST WEIGH RIGHTS DISCOURSE AGAINST THE ALTERNATIVES BEFORE DECIDING TO REJECT IT Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 119 What is being suggested in this discussion is that the recent practical application of rights language to animal issues makes sense when we consider the context in which the movement developed and the available alternative languages. The animal rights movement grew at a time when other rights-oriented movements had begun to make gains in politics. Rights, as a central and popular language in this culture, were easily extended and appropriated by activists concerned about animals. Moreover, the alternative languages did not have the power, familiarity, and persuasiveness of rights. Hence, when evaluating the productivity of animal rights language, and rights more generally, we must consider contextual factors and the viability of alternative modes of speaking. MUST COMPARE RIGHTS DISCOURSE TO ALTERNATIVES BEFORE REJECTING IT Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 122 Analyzing rights language solely in the abstract, without recognizing such contextual variables, may lead us to misunderstand its strategic and practical importance. In addition, without contextual analysis, our assessment may neglect crucial comparisons with the practical applicability of other languages. Without these comparisons, it is easy to dismiss rights language, as many critics on the left and right do. But such a dismal ignores the fact that rights language, unlike the alternatives, provides an entry into popular debate. Rights language offers a respected language to the silenced and an ability to communicate demands for social change. And a malleable rights language affords the possibility of reconstitution. Thus, it make practical sense for the marginalized, in seeking to enter and challenge the mainstream, to appeal to a language that is itself mainstream and to at the same time reconstruct this language. AT: “Rights Talk Bad” - PermutationNO EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO RIGHTS TALK FOR ANIMALS TODAY Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 91 Overall, activists stated that, while the future m ay hold something different, the present power of rights language should not be ignored. As one activist put it, “If society ever gets rid of the notion of rights and just starts talking about fair treatment, or what is just, or whatever, that’s fine…I just think that as political discourse it has a meaning and to not use that discourse when you’re talking about animals and to use it when you’re talking about other oppressed groups I think is…to say, well, my issue is not as important as those issues. RIGHTS DISCOURSE EMPIRICALLY EFFECTIVE—NO ALTERNATIVE Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 82 Exploring these questions, this chapter begins with an overview of critical legal scholarship on rights and some responses to that scholarship. The chapter then evaluates the evidence gathered from in-depth interviews with animal advocates, conducted between 1990 and 1991, on the subject of rights. In doing so, we shall see that, as a whole, animal rights activists are not misled by the myth of rights. Rather, activists maintain a sophisticated and strategic consciousness regarding the deployment of rights. Moreover, the argument suggests generally that a strategic approach to the deployment of rights combined with the fact that the flexible language of rights can emphasize values of responsibility and community offer social movements a productive tool to challenge existing relations of power. Although the weapon provided by rights is constrained and by no means assures success, the potential benefits of rights and the lack of alternative languages suggest that those who would discard rights go too far.
Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 114 But might there be other ways of speaking and advancing the cause of animals that do not inspire some of the drawbacks associated with rights? Might critics of rights be correct in advising a turn to alternative modes of speaking? I shall argue here that when we compare the various choices it becomes clear that, at least when we compare the various choices it becomes clear that, at l east in the present, rights language is the most productive for those interested in advancing the cause of animals. As we have seen, the traditional animal welfare movement employed the language of compassion rather than rights. The welfare movement maintained that humans ought to be compassionate to animals. This language was, and continues to be, associated with the language of protection. If we are to be compassionate and if compassion is an ideal to be fostered, animals deserved at least some protection against humans who lack compassion. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 1.43 Mb. Share with your friends:
|