It's troubling to read bits like the following from another 'animal advocate', 'academic' and 'moral person':
"I probably lashed out at you a bit just out of annoyance with your follower Alex Chernavsky. It was annoying to me to have him trash my NYT letter and immediately follow up with yet another of his links to your website (which I am tired of). I probably should have aimed my ire exclusively at him."
From what I understand, this is a comment from an email that Dr. Kazez sent Mr. Gary Francione recently. Francione did not send this to me. It's semi-publicly available. I don't know much about the situation except what is publicly available. I am not sure whether or not I qualify as a follower of Francione or not. I agree with many of his positions. I agree also with many of Marx' positions. I am not sure whether or not I would describe myself as a follower of Marx, although I do consider myself a Marxist.
if I were being ungenerous, my interpretation of this snippet would be: "'Yes, I was absusive to you, and I probably owe you an apology, but that would be difficult to give because I would lose face. It wasn't my fault, though; that Chernavsky guy made me do it. He criticized my article and I didn't have a reply. I'm tired of being corrected. I SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY JUST BEEN ABUSIVE TO CHERNAVSKY INSTEAD.'
Interpretations. I should say, I don't know Francione or Chernavsky personally. I have read Francione's books and have participated in some public discussion with him here and there over the years (some of which has been agreement, some of which has involved debate). I met him once in Philadelphia at a semi-public event, and I have to say, he was amiable and positive. Since I didn't know he would be attending, I didn't bring my copy of Rain Without Thunder, though, and I couldn't get it signed, and it made me very sad. It's a very well-reasoned, well-argued and well-evidenced book, and that's an increasing rarity in academic life.
All that considered, of course, none of this is especially relevant. It is every blogger's prerogative whether or not to encourage comments by providing the capability through his or her blog, as well as whether or not to publish any given comment. I am not saying that Dr. Kazez, in allowing her anger to get the better of her, was being abusive. I would point out, however, that this is the kind of explanation that abusive men offer for battering their spouses. That is, there is a difference between an explanation of behavior and a justification for behavior. Having read Chernavsky's comment, I can say it was fairly innocuous by any reasonable standard. Even if it weren't, I am not sure that any lashing was justified.
Further, I think that when we interpret the work of others, we can do so in good faith (seeing/hearing what we think is honestly meant) or in bad faith (seeing/hearing what we are inclined to). Either way, there is a serious difference between just giving an explanation of bad behaviour and providing serious justification for it. Further, the solution proposed, I would assume seriously, is to direct ire at other advocates for disagreeing. That's still fairly morally and intellectually problematic.
Of course, with some work and good faith, it's not impossible to reimagine a statement like "[Francione] wants to keep animals in the worst possible condition" as a failed attempt to articulate an interpretation as an interpretation. But from this, it doesn't follow that as an nterpretation, a statement is, by magic, intellectually correct or morally defensible (that pesky logic again). In this case, Dr. Kazez' 'interpretation' is neither. Again, I am not a philosopher, but I've always understood "he wants" to be a statement about what someone wants. But let's give Dr. Kazez the benefit of the doubt and see if there is some wiggle in the word "wants". Dictionary.com's definition of wants:
|
There are actually 10 definitions offered, and anyone who wishes to edify him, her or zirself may look it up. They are all inapplicable to Francione, a man who has dedicated much of his life and work to promoting the rights and well-being of animals (human and non). At the risk of repeating myself:
First, Francione's argument is not predicated on leaving any animals in any condition. Abolition is predicated on the view that nonhuman animals have the right not to be used as property -- period. If every chicken were kept in a guilded chicken coop out back and forced to produce eggs, it would still be wrong based on Francione's views. No one needs to take my word for it:
The problem with happy meat:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/happy-meat-making-humans-feel-better-about-eating-animals/
Why welfare reform is not a viable approach if we take animal well-being seriously:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-four-problems-of-animal-welfare-in-a-nutshell/
I'll add another piece by Francione on vegetarianism.
To be clear, I am not saying that we should always consider a dictionary to be an absolute authority on the use of a given word in every possible context. I am saying that there is no other way to understand the use of the term "wants" in the context in which Dr. Kazez has used it except to describe what Francione personally, supposedly wants, feels is lacking, has desires for, needs, and so on. I addressed this is as a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of his work in my previous entry.
But it's this particular choice of phrase, 'he wants', that draws Dr. Kazez into making a demonstrably false (and rather silly) statement about both Francione personally and his position professionally. First, advocates should be careful of these kinds of statements. Second, this leaves the reader with two ways to read what Dr. Kazez has written: either she doesn't understand what "wants" means (easily forgivable) or that she was actively trying to misrepresent Francione's position, because she was lashing out, because she was angry that someone disagreed with her and he cited his source in doing so. Still forgivable, but neither's good.
I am not piddling over word choice here. Dr. Kazez is a doctor of philosophy, and so, I would assume she often responds to her colleagues professionally but critically. If Dr. Kazez had written "His position suggests, or the consequences of his position are, or....", certainly, that would be an analysis/interpretation of Francione's position. She would still be wrong about Francione's position, and we would still have the task of correcting her misconceptions. But that's not what she wrote. What she wrote was: "he wants," and that's what makes this kind of tthing so strangely reminiscient of the whole Glenn Beck thing in which Beck described Obama on one hand as "a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture" only to turn around and say: "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem."
'Francione wants X', but wants does not mean wants, it means something else, and it is just 'my interpretation' and all interpretations are equally good and sound, and that makes lashing out at another advocate and misrepresenting their views when they disagree justifiable.
Hunh.
To be clear, I am not saying that this is Dr. Kazez' position. I would say however, that anyone who would take this position is very deeply confused in a number of ways. I am, of course, also not saying that Dr. Kazez is a political pundit out to market herself by making controversial statements, who, in an interview, made some very unfortunate, illogical and untrue remarks. But I am wondering what meaningful difference it makes to insist that a statement was not an attribution but rather an interpretation, if the statement is intellectually and morally problematic one to make -- or whether lashing out at a colleague in this way is justifiable -- or whether it is helpful to blame others when we ourselves behave badly. This all seems misguided to me.
While Dr. Kazez's statement sounds like an admission that she misrepresented Francione's position, and that she did so out of anger with someone else, let's imagine (contractually according to what she has written) that it was just a sincere attempt to address Francione's position. Let's assume (contrafactually according to what she has written) that she was not "lashing out." Let's assume that his was motivated by a sincere ideological disagreement and that there were no personal issues involved. The news for philosophy students at SMU (and animals living in slavery) is still very bad.
Both possible understandings of 'he wants' make it seem unlikely that she has read Francione's work, yet feels fine commenting on both it and on him, echoing one of the most unoriginal and insubstantial ad hominems floating around against abolitionists: that we want animals to remain in the worst possible conditions, and so, the abolitionist critique of welfare advocacy as counterproductive is unfounded. Further, it suggests that rather than respond substantively to the disagreements of others, she may instead lash out. It would be a bad inference to assume that she lashes out at everyone equally, but it still raises questions about why she lashed out at Francione for someone else's comment, or why she felt the need to lash out in general over a difference of views.
Finally, the latter option (that she was just interpreting) makes it seems not only unlikely that Dr. Kazez has read Francione's work, but that she reasons so poorly and understands her professional obligations as a member of the academy so vaguely that her understanding of "analyses" includes personal attacks that verge on defamations. And not against just anyone. Against an advocate who has given 25+ years of his life to help lift the wretched of the earth, to borrow a turn of phrase from Fanon, up out of their slavery. If Dr. Kazez is 'an ally' of those who take animal slavery serious (and of animals themselves) as she claims in her letter to the Times, perhaps these kinds of statements are not helpful.
More important, though, insofar as welfare advocacy regulates the property status of nonhuman animals, it continues their slavery. There is no value for nonhuman animals to have a sonata on the way to the slaughterhouse or an extra quarter inch of space -- and that's if a reform is commercially viable to industry and palatable to the public enough to pass.
That's bad, surely, but she's still not hearing the criticism of her colleagues as legitimate (to the substance of which she seems to agree largely). Helping someone to clarify a misunderstanding of theirs is not a campaign against them. I realize that the animal welfare movement makes very liberal use of the term 'campaign', and does not take disagreement (of any kind) well, but a couple of comments on a blog and a blog article or two in an honest effort to correct someone is not really a campaign, it's not really personal, and it's not something for which one should lash out against other advocates who disagree.
Creating an "Axis of Evil", travelling to the Sudan, preparing to give testimony at the UN, taking out some billboard advertising space, or even writing a letter to the editor of a mass publication, and so on -- these might all justify the use of the word "campaign". But I feel we've started to move from Glenn Beck territory to Kim Jong Il. To be clear, I am not calling Dr. Kazez angry, paranoid or delusional. Again, I'm still just wondering aloud why she hasn't apologized yet and, more important, why she hasn't gone vegan yet. This seems like both the rational and the right thing to do.
But let's get to Tiger Woods, someone who, even without a PhD in philosophy, has nevertheless done something wrong, admitted and apologized for it. Yes, he's apologized publicly to Nike, Gatorade and other sponsors, but I would assume that he's also apologized to his wife privately. I suspect he probably owes her one. But in apologizing, he's acknowledged wrongdoing and taken responsibility. He hasn't blamed others. He hasn't implied he's going to continue wrongdoing if his wife makes him angry enough again or anything of the sort. He's understood the moral problem he caused and has asked for forgiveness in light of the harm that he's done. In a society that encourages a very loose sense of what we owe others, Tiger Woods has at least admitted that he's done something wrong.
I never thought I'd write this, but I think it's wonderful when a sports icon can teach a professor of philosophy a moral lesson in how to act virtuously. I said it in my last article, and I'll say it again: Dr. Kazez, I think you should apologize and that definitely, you should go vegan!
But finally, and most importantly, none of this changes the facts of the situation. Vegetarians still continue to use animal products, which is morally wrong in and of itself. They still contribute in finanicially substantive ways to the exploitation and suffering of nonhuman animals. Moreover, there is no "right" way to exploit another sentient being for his, her, or zir labor, products or personhood. Use is wrong, whether the rapist goes to lengths to "pleasure" the victim or if the murderer arranges violin music while slashing the victim's throat.
It may be better to do less harm than to do more harm, but it does not follow from this that we are justified to do harm when we can avoid it, or that those who support lynching fewer African Americans are allies of those who opposed it outright. To do what is 'less wrong' is not to do 'no wrong' and it is not to do what is right. Nor does it follow that if we cannot avoid all harm, that we are necessarily justified in any and every harm. Finally, it does not follow that, emotional appeals and faux-rhetorical questions aside, we should focus on reducing suffering while allowing the primarily social and legal drivers of that suffering to remain intact or making them more entrenched.
Slavery is unjust; should we wish to act morally rather than conveniently, fashionably, passively, emotionally and/or subjectively, we should oppose it. Abolitionists are moral, objective, and active agent of change who focus on the work most likely to emancipate animals, and that is promoting veganism and abolition.
In closing, I believe that any of us can act virtuously. Any of us can do right. We can all change. No donation is required. No PhD is needed. We can all be agents of change. To be vegan, you just need virtues like honesty, creativity, humility, benevolence, courage, but most of all, a sense of justice. If you want to act virtuously, one of the most important thing you can do is to take the rights of nonhuman animals seriously and go vegan. If you want to help a nonhuman animal directly, please adopt. Shelters are overflowing with animals who need care.
If you are not vegan now, you should go vegan today (and that includes Dr. Kazez). If you are already vegan, and not an abolitionist, feel free to read my other articles or head to www.abolitionistapproach.com to learn more about the approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment