On April 23rd. 2010, organised by, among others, the Philosophy Department of Liverpool University, this conference was attended by some 70 people, among whom, three members of the QCA committee.
Critical Animal Studies (CAS) developed in the United States from the Center on Animal Liberation Affairs (CALA) as an academic forum for studying the animal liberation movement. In 2007, CALA changed its name to the Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS) with the aim of transforming higher education into an inclusive environment for all species. CAS is an expanding academic field guided by a commitment to the abolition of animal suffering, with particular focus on vivisection.
The ten conference speakers, drawn from academic disciplines of theology, politics, philosophy, ethics, feminism, the arts and Animal Rights (AR) campaigning, shared common ground in seeking to expand morally, politically and creatively our thinking and action regarding animality and the inclusion of other species.
There follow a partial précis of the papers we heard over the day.
Alastair Currie, Policy Advisor of PETA UK, spoke on Gauging, Changing and Mobilising Public Opinion: Challenges for AR Advocates.
Alastair listed figures for the Key Performance Indicators which give an idea of how the public will accept, for example, vivisection. If it is for medical research, 70% are accepting of the practice, if the animal suffers no “unnecessary suffering”, 71%. If done to counter life-threatening disease, 50% are in favour, and 68% if there is no alternative.
The picture is depressing: experiments on animals are now at the highest level for 20 years and 87% of the public are “conditional acceptors” of it, with men more likely than women to do so. The proportion of people agreeing that more research for alternatives needs to be done declined by 16%.
In the case of fur, there is much feeling against expressed, but fur sales have gone up by over 58% compared with the end of the 1990s – a 169% growth over the past 10 years.
A brighter picture emerges in the case of hunting – a majority of the public, of all parties, is opposed to repeal of the ban.
Alastair mentioned some legislative measures aimed at reducing animal suffering – an end to sow stalls, battery cages, the Cosmetics Bill, a probable ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, on fur farming, the EU seal fur ban in 2009, the Hunting Bill, the 1986 whaling moratorium and, in general, the 2006 Animal Welfare Bill.
Numbers of vegetarians remain pretty static. Some 2-3% of the British public appear to be vegetarian, though the picture is not wholly clear, as the definition of “vegetarianism” is wide – we have all heard fish eaters describe themselves as “vegetarian”. The figure for vegans is some 0.3% = 180,000 in 2010.
It would be interesting to have an idea of the number of people who are members of AR groups, but that was impossible to discover.
On public perceptions: in general, there was disagreement with the suggestion that there is little cruelty to animals in this country.
Tactics available for use were listed: “shock horror”, informing the public, synergistic benefits – for instance, vegetarian food is good for us – “fight the power”, reasoned argument, celebrity endorsement, outrage, welfare protection and “extremism” – what will work?
The domino theory, where one lab is targeted and closed and the assumption is made that this will lead to the next closure, assumes that everything and everyone is the same. The Gandhian “first they ignore you, then they laugh at you… then you win” is unfortunately not necessarily the case.
What do we not know? We don’t know why people become or stay vegetarian, who are the AR people and are they changing, are the groups gaining/losing support or is the position static, which tactics are most effective in generating adherence to AR principles, is animal welfare an obstacle to change – for instance, it is not clear that organic meat eaters become vegetarian in due course. How much is our message understood?
What now? We need more research, links between academia and campaigners, method not just theory, to find out what does work and evidence-based advocacy.
A conclusion was that much campaigning is of the slash-and-burn variety – and it should become sustainable.
