Petitioning PeTA

I have begun an online petition to send to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) concerning their claims about Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation. [1]

This blog entry is to explain why and, in particular, argues that this is not a trivial matter in terms of the evolution of the animal rights movement.

As I have pointed out elsewhere in this blog, sociologists, criminologists, political scientists and others regard social movements as claims makers. This is an old but still valid definition of a social movement: “a collectivity acting with some continuity to promote a change or resist a change in society or group of which it is a part”. [2]

To bring about or resist social change social movements tend to make claims about the issues that concern them. Even the smallest grassroots mobilisation tends to make some contacts with the mass media in order to publicise their views and, increasingly, they use the internet to disseminate their claims and highlight their values. I mentioned in a recent blog entry, [3] that sociologist John Lofland seems to assume, quite reasonably, that the names and the claims of social movements reflect their fundamental values.

While Lofland cites the peace movement (shared value: peace); the feminist movement (shared value: feminism); and the civil rights movement (shared value: rights), I suggested that it ought to follow logically that the shared value in an animal rights movement would also be rights. When we think of a rights-based organisation, such as Amnesty International, we assume that their fundamental claims will be about the nature of human rights and the harms caused by the violation of rights.[4]

Although there has been talk of an “animal rights movement” pretty much since the publication of Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation in the mid-1970s, most of the organisations said to comprise it, and the vast majority of its members do not talk about right-holding and rights violations. Instead of basic claims about rights bearing and rights violations, this movement’s main claims are about cruelty: don’t wear fur because wearing fur is cruel; don’t hunt because hunting is cruel; don’t go to animal circuses because animal circuses are cruel; don’t experiment on nonhuman animals because experiments on nonhuman animals are cruel (and they do not work), and so on.

With so much emphasis on what’s cruel, it is somewhat logical that so many will concentrate on what’s ‘humane’. Therefore, for many, the issue never goes within a mile of rights and rights violations, it becomes a matter of replacing what’s cruel with what’s (more) ‘humane’. Consequently, rights in ‘animal rights’ are rhetorical: used in labels, group names, article headings, etc. Few advocates are actually serious about animal rights – and even some of those who say they are nevertheless often favour cruelty claims on the basis that such claims are understandable by the public.

Of course, this does not apply to all animal advocates. A small number do take animal rights seriously. A small number do base their fundamental claims on right-holding and rights violations. A small number of animal rights philosophers, most notably Gary Francione and Tom Regan, have written seriously about animal rights since the 1980s. However, social scientific evidence suggests that few animal advocates are familiar with the rights-based philosophies. If they have read anything on animal ethics, it is most likely to be the work of utilitarian Peter Singer, specially his most influential text, Animal Liberation.

Commentator after commentator, from within and without the animal movement, point to the importance of Animal Liberation. What that means, however, is that a text of utilitarian animal welfarism has informed a substantial section of the movement. This movement has, to be sure, flirted with the rights philosophers, especially Tom Regan. Gary Francione, too, was flavour of the month at PeTA once. However, historians of the animal protection movement will write that the cracks soon began to show. The rights-based thinkers were too fundamentalist, too “extremist”, too abolitionist, and too consistent for the traditional and progressive animal welfarists who have formed the bulk of the post-1970s movement.

This brings me back to the online petition that I want to send to PeTA.

Why would I bother petitioning PeTA in a world in which about 17,000 nonhumans are slaughtered every second for their flesh? I bother because social movement claims-making is important. I bother because clarity in social movement claims-making is important too.

I care about animal rights. But that means I’m anxious that rights do rather more in an animal rights movement than feature in labels and headings. I suggest – and I claim that this is entirely reasonable – that those who want to make their basic claims rights-based claims should become known as the animal rights movement. Surely those who reject rights-based claims, or those who shy away from them for whatever reason, should have the decency to allow the name to be used by those who take rights seriously rather than use the name ‘rights’ rhetorically.

The reason I have banged on about PeTA so much is to acknowledge their importance. There is little doubt that PeTA are a big voice in the animal protection movement, and in mass media coverage – and there is little doubt that people take on board the message that PeTA are “the largest animal rights group in world”.

However, in terms of what PeTA say philosophically, they are not an animal rights organisation at all. They appear to have little adherence to animal rights theory. Their web site reveals this. They persistently misrepresent Peter Singer’s views as being animal rights theory. They link features such as “Why Animal Rights?” to extracts from Animal Liberation. This means that PeTA mistakenly – and apparently deliberately - tell people that progressive animal welfarism is animal rights.

Moreover – in their online bookstore, they distort Singer’s work. Under the heading, “general animal rights”, PeTA write: “Animal Liberation
by Peter Singer. Referred to as the animal rights “bible,” this book includes in-depth examinations of factory farming, animal experimentation, vegetarianism, and animal rights philosophy. If you read only one animal rights book, it has to be this one. 204 pages, paperback.” [5]

PeTA persist in misleading members and supporters about Animal Liberation and they do so in the context of Singer himself going to increasingly more explicit lengths to make people realise that he is not an animal rightist. As criminologist Piers Beirne notes, “[There are] several ambiguous references in Animal Liberation to ‘animal rights’, Singer later carefully stressed that the notion of rights plays no significant role in his utilitarianism and that it operates merely ‘as a concession to popular rhetoric’”.[6] As an example of this position, Singer explains in a 1999 interview that, “People describe me as an ‘animal rights advocate’ and that’s not strictly correct” and, “While the language of rights has a use, particularly in political contexts, I don’t really like it as the foundation of moral argument, because it’s too intuitive, and people’s intuitions are different”.[7]

Given this sort of view from Peter Singer himself, shouldn’t PeTA respect their favourite philosopher and alter their misrepresentation of Animal Liberation? If they did, and this is what the petition is calling for, they would significantly help in terms of clarifying the issue of who stands for animal rights.

If you agree that this is not a trivial matter in terms of the evolution of the animal movement, then please visit the petition blog [1] and sign your name, using the “comments” feature. Thank you.



[1] http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/PETAPET/index.html

[2] Turner R.H. & Killian L.M. (1957) Collective Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[3] http://human-nonhuman.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-animal-rights-movement.html

[4] AI, for example, write: “Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity”.

[5] https://www.petacatalog.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BK390

[6] Piers Beirne (2007) ‘Animal rights, animal abuse and green criminology’, in P. Beirne & N. South (eds.) Issues in Green Criminology: Confronting harms to environments, humanity and other animals, Cullompton: Willan.

[7] http://www.citypaper.net/articles/100799/feat.20q.shtml