Animal Rights Focus Undermines Environmental Movements

Animal Rights Focus Undermines Environmental Movements

Gary L. Francione, Professor of Law, Rutgers University, 1996, Rain Without Thunder, p. 172-3

Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 84

In addition to these allegations, other scholars critique what they view as the deceptive side of rights. Some suggest that movements mistakenly equate the formal granting of a right with the substantive attainment of it. Achieving a formal right, some argue, does not necessarily imply substantive change. To the contrary, winning a formal right can mislead groups into believing that they have succeeded by giving the appearance that justice is being served. The appearance of justice provided by the attainment of formal a formal right frequently conceals the fact that, in substantive terms, the right continues to be violated. Moreover, if the formal recognition of a right gives the false appearance that the battle has been won, this may lead to the dissipation of movement efforts.
ATTAINING RIGHTS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE—CREATES ILLUSION OF SUCCESS THAT DE-MOBILIZES MOVEMENTS

Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 83

On this view, seeking and attaining new rights can hardly be considered beneficial. Indeed, the attainment of a right may even be more harmful than failure since “winning” a right creates an illusion of success. Such an illusion leads the members of a movement to feel that the battle has been won and results in the diffusion of the movement.
FOCUS ON RIGHTS DISCOURSE FRACTURES THE MOVEMENTS CONCERNED WITH ANIMAL ADVOCACY

Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 233

Still, the meaning of rights is an important component of the continuing divisions in movement identity. Many feminists within the animal advocacy movement believe that rights are inherently individualistic and competitive. These feminists generally do not accept the notion that the standard conception of rights can be altered or that rights can be separated from Lockean liberalism. Utilitarians also have fundamental problems with a rights-oriented approach. Since utilitarians base their views on maximizing happiness, rights are essentially nonsense. The meaning of rights, whether based on individualism, rationality, sentience, or anything else, is hollow. For those who buy into a holistic approach, rights based on rationality or sentience do little to recognize the interconnectedness of the planet. Rights, limited as they are, do not extend to plants, trees, or nature as a whole. Rights talk thus does not fit well within a holistic approach. Finally, animal welfarists maintain traditional conceptions of the meaning of rights and do not accept the view that rights apply to nonhumans.

Animal Rights Focus Undermines Environmental Movements

Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 234

Along with internal conflicts, the shift to rights language has led to some crucial problems with the public’s perception of movement identity. Because the public perceives rights as applying only to humans, the notion of animal rights appears absurd. Animal rights are equated with what the public takes to be human rights—the right to free speech, the right to the free exercise of religion, the right to vote, and so forth. Translating these for nonhumans, one arrives at the ridiculous notions of dogs having a right to bark, cats having a right to pray, and cows having the right to elect political representatives. Given the popular perception that animal rights means animals having the same rights as humans, the movement’s identity takes on the appearance of absurdity.
ANIMAL RIGHTS TALK HAS UNDERMINED ANIMAL MOVEMENT UNITY AND IDENTITY

Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 232-3

Even with the space to shape its own identity, the shift to rights language has been problematic for movement identity. From within the movement, dispute over a rights-oriented approach and the meaning of rights has led to internal divisions. These divisions have inhibited the development of a unified movement identity. From the outside, the prevailing meaning of rights generates unfavorable public perceptions of movement identity. Thus, it seems that the indeterminate nature of rights and predominant understanding of the language has problematic implications for movement identity.

The shift to rights language has fostered splits among animal advocates. The most prominent split is located between traditional animal welfare groups that seek humane treatment of animals and the newer, more radical groups that strive for animal liberation. There are also important divisions within the contemporary radical branch of the animal advocacy movement. As we discussed in chapter 2, competing frameworks have developed that attempt to justify animal liberation. The rights-oriented framework competes with Peter Singer’s utilitarianism and with feminist and holistic approaches. Although the rights-oriented paradigm has come to symbolize the contemporary animal advocacy movement, the movement as a whole has not internally accepted a rights-oriented identity. With these conflicts, the identity of the animal advocacy movement has been under challenge from within.
RIGHTS TALK CREATES CONFLICTS THAT DISTANCE THE ANIMAL MOVEMENTS FROM OTHER SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 94

“has certainly divided some compassionate people from other compassionate people, because there are still compassionate people who think that our duties are limited to keeping animals comfortable while they’re being exploited. So it has been divisive.”