Ecosocial bonding

Most nonhuman animals face the threat of being potentially defined as “meat” or otherwise as any kind of “usable source” made from their bodies. Inseparably their agency and in fact all aspects of their lives are systematically being reductively objectified.

The nonhuman animal body is categorically oppressed in a form of exploitable objectification, which implies the permanent imminent danger of > being subdued to unbearable emotional and physical pain and of > being subdued to the most complete possible form of negation of the individual selfness of the victim.

The dominating human societal constructs function with an inbuilt demand for systemic violence and destruction towards animality.

A change of this zoocidal system is an ongoing struggle on all kinds of planes and here we find the reason of ecosocial bonding and understanding.

Gruppe Messel, Tierautonomie

Speciesism as a structure

Speciesism as a structure

It’s useless to choose the same pattern, the same structure that makes up structurally the frame and the architecture of an oppressive system. But we see this happen in the environmental movement and we see this in the antispeciesist movements. The structures applied to convey informational exchange and communication of ideas and thoughts about the issues, create the effective outcome and establish the inner contents themselves. If you apply hierarchically drive structures, you repeat humancentric patterns in “that” specific sense of humanhood. People though have a huge inhabitation to omit classical, typical human hierarchical cultural patterns. And they convey and transfer these patterns contentwise onto the fields of their activism.

When the entire plurality of animalhood has a manifold pattern, we don’t assume their practical patterns of social self-organization, instead we discuss them on the level of our hierarchical cultural concepts. Culturally we create clusters of “fame” as markers of social importance, and the weight of the contents created and conveyed is predetermined and shaped thereby. With our collective constructs we practically demolish the reality of other nonhuman-shaped social constructs, by negating their effectiveness and relevance in our communicative, reciprocal terms. That means: we could learn from the specific social forms of (communicative – thus fundamental) self-organization of the individuals, groups, living beings and entities we defend.

The first inhibitor, also driven by our structural approach, is of course the definitions we imprint onto the nonhuman realsm, and the lack of a will to understand and open up toward others with their own social codings as the standard. If we prioritize dominant, nonhuman-derogative human value systems (as specific human value systems) we therewith inferiorize the values, the meaningfulness of other views and positions in this world.

What is a must in animal advocacy and environmental activism, is to let go the hierarchical patterns when we approach systems that exist in the not-human realm. Our own dominant patterns are not nature given and “for all to be swallowed”, our patterns of prioritization as a group of dominant human beings is restrictive and stifling as a structure itself. People who uphold our typical cultural speciesist (…) patters, that suffocate other perspectives, are dominant by exactly aiming at social denying and negating plurality.

Gruppe Messel

No emotional separability between humanity and animality

No emotional separability between humanity and animality. Antispeciesist Animal Sociology.

Do I belong to humanity or animality in terms of my emotional relations, do I belong to both maybe equally?

This comment as a PDF

If I can chose whose fate I am affected by, and what types of injustice worry me most, I can also express that I feel the kind of injustice towards nonhumans worries me specifically, and that them being victimized makes me sad in a extreme way, same as with humans, … and if I would go further: how would it affect me when humans would be killed to be eaten, milked, inseminated against their will.

Who ever is subjugated to these procedures and this quality of suffering and injustice gets the specific type of attention for their fate … .

I was just thinking this when I saw headlines juxtaposed about human victims and murdered nonhumans being displayed, as if the fate of the nonhumans – which was much worse in such generalizable terms – was of less interest. To me it isn’t. But when I say this openly people try to stifle my point of view.

And of course if you set forth our limited relation to the nonhuman world, where nonhumans are reduced to “instincts” and biology, when you have the typical view about nonhumanity, then yes, you fulfill your own prophecies in your tiny world … but if you take nonhumans as who they are, you see the type of injustice is the real problem: why someone is chosen as a victim, why groups are so excluded and omitted that the ruling majorities of humans just keep oppressing them – by all means > that is the real terror.

Finally: Humans don’t have to be all on the same side when it comes to positions they hold about nonhumanity. It’s sad how humanity always seem to expect homogeneity in mind. #radical #antispeciesism

Palang LY, Gruppe Messel

Nonhumanity and reasons for solidarity (fragment)

Nonhumanity and reasons for solidarity (fragment)

This text as a PDF

Building relations between being “human” and animality and standing in social context with nonhuman animals:

  • I am non-hierarchical outside the “human” box …
  • My frame of ethical reference is only cross-secting “humanity” …
  • I consider my being human as co-integrative with nonhumanity …
  • My being human is standing in nonbiological terms. It is social and mutually philosophical.

Nonhuman and other-than-human principles frame new philosophies: philosophies that we can comprehend and which are outside of – or cross-secting the human scope. Look at non-hierarchical social life for instance in social systems of birds, reptiles, canidae … nonhuman animal groups, seen of course from a non-biologistical standpoint. In the context of getting to learn about other-than-human ethical-sociologies and eco-sociologies we can unsolidarize with oppressive human positions and solidarize with the entire nonhuman and other-than-human social systems as major, primary frames of reference.

Antispeciesist Animal Sociology

Being a lifelong vegan does not guarantee that the person is not speciesist

I met a lifelong vegan who says that killing nonhuman animals would be totally okay in this person’s opinion.

This makes me think that:

  • veganism is too little understood as what iit originally is > a lifestyle about ethical pacifist relations towards nonhuman animality
  • that people are underinformed about ethical implications of a constructive human-nonhuman-animal relation in society as a whole
  • that people are also underinformed about interfaces of socio-ethical and eco-political concerns regarding human-nonhuman relations

It made me feel very upset to hear such an attitude from a lifelong vegan. I wonder why someone in that case even wants to call him- or herself a vegan, when they consciously exclude nonhumans from the frame of their constructive ethical relations and when they practice blatant speciesism.

Veganism unfortunately is still working much at the level of a trend, and I think it is exactly a trend for the reason of a raising moral and ethical awareness and growing sensitivity towards speciesism in society but that nevertheless veganism being a “trend” mostly serves as a buffer, it makes you cleared of guilt and blame, yet a vegan person might still reserve for themselves a speciesist stance in society so as to keep being mainstream. Some vegans hold a conservative position insofar as they want to cater to the omnivore mass society.

I said to that person that I feel offended and that to me saying killing nonhuman animals for consumption is okay would be similar to bigots telling me that racism was okay or sexism, and that I think it’s problematic that when I talk about this perspective of mine, my standpoint would easily be counted as provocative and inappropriate, from that mass-oriented standpoint which makes the human-nonhuman-animal divide, in which it is okay to objectify nonhumans.

The other person compared the scenario of killing nonhumans for food with the unhealthiness of alcohol consumption then, and said that she was often upset when people defend the consumption of alcohol, but that one should be tolerant of other people’s views. I said that I thought this comparison would be inadequate, since talking about killing nonhumans is talking about subjects and absent referents, whereas talking about alcohol consumption is talking about humans consuming an object (alcohol). She said that alcohol consumption would also take lives. At this point I realized that the discussion is mainly about polemics.

This experience makes me frustrated at how fellow vegans can be basically only technically be vegan yet practically be avid speciesists. I tend to think this is a legacy of the vegetarian movement, which emphasized to much on health issues instead of leading a debate about ethics such as the antivivisection movement comparably did ( – talking about the European debates of the late 19th and the early 20th century), also it’s an ongoing inheritance of “human” hierarchism towards nonhumanity.

Ethically being a technical vegan is an interesting position to be in, yet I think it’s out of a sensible line.

When veganism becomes directed at a wellbeing that pushes the wellbeing of others into a secondary or irrelevant position, when foremostly the integrity of individuals similar to ‘oneself’ is considered to be of primary relevance whereas concerns relevant to individuals who are different to the ‘self’ (or the own status) are decidedly ignored, we face a danger of technicality in vegan ethics that can be addressed by a meaningful discussion about the problematics veganism as a practice implicitly and explicitly addresses.

Antispeciesist Animal Sociology

Fragments on Zoocide I

Yes we can extend our discussion of > forms totalitarianism > to imply an outlook on the ongoing zoocide and ecocide.

Antispeciesist Animal Sociology

Gruppe Messel: Fragments on Zoocide I, PDF

Antispeciesism is not necessarily what speciesism isn’t

People who consider themselves to be antispeciesists mostly don’t see or don’t want to discuss the links between: ecocide, genocide and zoocide. The term and notion of a zoocide does not even exist for most in that correlation in their terminology. Many still hold the same assumptions about animality that base on ethical histories and theories within philosophy, religion, natural sciences that are the very cause of speciesism. Loving nonhuman animals at the same time as quoting biologist data for instance and instead of coining own liberated terms, antispeciesism today does not equal consistent antispeciesist thought so far. It helps with the symptoms but harms at the same time, by cementing nonhumans into a slippery slope concept of freedom and dignity.

Rights claimed only go as far as theories about nonhuman animals are compatible with it. Not breaking with the power of human definition, antispeciesism today misses to acknowledge that nonhuman animals are oppressed in the first place in their very own qualities of who they are, in their identities independent of humancentric frameworks. The denial of their independence happens parallel to them being bereft of their physical freedom and integrity, parallel to being tortured and murdered and physically, objectified to a human will to cause them the ultimate pain … .

Nonanthropocentric perceptions

Society acts as if animal degradation and zoocide were irrelevant, they separate these type of phenomena from questions about human existence and environmental ethics. Such blind spots form part of a lacking ability to speak about the fundamentality of the human-animal relation in constructive terms.

The only way humanity’s large collectives correlate to nonhumans is by assuming the own existential meaning could be placed on top of nonhumanity in arbitrary hierarchies, assuming that animal existence was of lesser meaningfulness in the universe, in the big scope.

However, animal history, past and present, can’t be relegated into these spaces humanity have created … for killing and torture, or equally into the communication structures of demeaning anthropocentrist propaganda, into any of the institutions of speciesism (ranging from zoological gardens to natural science museums), or into cultural murderous-rape habits of consumption:

Nonhuman cultural history is the life of this universe’s animal inhabitants, and not all human individuals would ever lie about this “crossroads truth” in human perception.

Being radical antispe …

A very rough expression of a feeling in regards to radical antispeciesism facing a conflict of being stuck in the middle of biologistic ‘animal lovers’ and nonhumanity-oblivious social justice clusters … :

If social justice work categorically excludes animal bodies, it’s questionable to my point of view. Saying this I don’t mean the type of implication that bases on “mild” speciesist, biologistic views of animality.

I come myself from a ‘mixed race’ background and I have grown up in a country where you would face exclusion if you did not fit into the right image of the virtual “false-ethicity-person” and the right cliché going along with that. It’s not like all foreigners or poc or mixed-race individuals were equally accepted or discriminated against. Much was and is dependent on the social function society ascribes you to take in the place you live.

Seeing a lot of people who come from socially comparable backgrounds such as mine working rightly for social justice, I wonder why the majority misses out on antispeciesist intersectionality though? To my point of view social justice can’t just evade questions of how concepts about animality and nature have been constructed in our societies. How can social justice turn an oblivious eye on zoocide and ecocide, when exactly those are facts that result from the very same foundations on which other oppressive systems thrived, and when those facts are taking place are all around us?

I believe that justice for humanity can hardly base on the oppressive constructs of animality and nature anymore, without being prolonged types of injustice.

We speak about the atrocities of the genocides, and meanwhile we speak about the ecocide, but when are we going to speak of the zoocide that is taking place?

What is it in people that makes zoocide and ecocide possible?

The assumption that only the “homo” is “sapient” (knowing) – as in the taxonomical classification of the Homo sapiens as the crown of creation by Carl von Linné / Carolus Linnaeus – expresses that nonhuman animal knowledge and the nonhuman living world is considered to be of lesser or no (relevant) type of knowledge (from a human perspective).

The human is assumed to be knowing, the nonhuman to be not knowing.

This type of thought enabled argumentations for massmurder on the biologistical basis.

Why speciesism is evil

Why speciesism is evil

palang, Gruppe Messel

We don’t need to discuss whether a person or group is evil in all aspects, when we want to evaluate if an act of speciesism (committed by a person or group) is evil and condemnable.

In general often people who commit any type of evil, do not seem to their social environment like they would hold an “evil” potential, meaning, that a person can have different aspects about them, or also purposely mask their not-so-good sides. Another thing to keep in mind is that every chapter of human history taught us, that what some might have felt as beneficial to them, was plain evil to others who were negatively affected by a “gain” of someone else.

Speciesism is a (specific) form of oppression – and as such it is evil:

A.) Assuming that speciesism was merely a historical accidence, would mean to deny that nonhuman animals could have ever been perceived as something else than “objects”, and with that as “objects of speciesism”. Acts of speciesism are conscious acts of violating other (animal) individuals. Nonhuman animals are not automatically only viewable as objects.

My position is, that our degrading views of nonhuman animals today and in our shared history (i.e. the arguments with which we mark the nonhuman animal world as less- or non-relevant), are kinds of attitudes based on a totalitarian layer that society continuously enacts and that is functioning by society’s willingness to accept this form of a system; we compel and force members of our society to adopt speciesist attitudes, however we can step out of such a system and resist, like we can equally resist to take part in other forms of oppressive structures.

B.) To assume that speciesist acts could be done without any conscious form of evil will and behaviour, means that we rule out the quality of evil which we face in the given oppressive context that speciesism marks. Every “procedure” done, that violates the physical and mental integrity of a nonhuman animal individual (directly or indirectly), is a conscious act and an act of will – even when the human individual who commits this act, finds and is offered and taught excuses to rationalize his or her deeds as necessary or non-evil.

Speciesism is evil because it masks as being an acceptable form of viewing nonhuman animal others as: ownable, definable, edible, usable, ignorable … as passive objects or “eternal victims”, the list seems endless.

I do think that as an Animal Liberationist one is accountable to tell the facts about the forms of conscious human evil that we face in speciesist oppression.

Revised version of http://simorgh.de/niceswine/why-speciesism-is-evil

I set myself a happy task

I have set myself the happy task to sift these fragments from my NiceSwine blog through and assemble a reasonable reader from them. This list excludes my “preliminary fragmental list on Speciesism and Animal Hatred” and my fragments from by civilized objects blog. My E-Readers so far are to be found here: Animal Autonomy, not to be conflated with our Tierautonomie-Journal.

  1. A not so clear relation: Animal Agency and Morality, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/a-not-so-clear-relation-animal-agency-and-morality
  2. What is Animality, and what it isn’t, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/animality-positives
  3. When speciesism feeds speciesism, and why AR activists should not fall for unproductive rhetorical twists, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/when-speciesism-feeds-speciesism-and-why-ar-activists-should-not-fall-for-unproductive-rhetorical-twists
  4. A vegan economy? Where to start, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/a-vegan-economy-where-to-start
  5. Seeing Big Birds, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/seeing-big-birds
  6. Why speciesism is evil, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/why-speciesism-is-evil
  7. A fragment on insect mythologies and insect representations, and why symbolism is not sufficient to explain the relation, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/fragment-on-insect-mythologies-and-representations
  8. “Joy” and “pain” are reductionary concepts about the rainbow shadedness of animal sentience, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/holistic-sentience-concepts
  9. The problems we cause for animals and for each other, and the fine distinction, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/a-fine-line
  10. The Violence Question: Taking a jump to altruism …, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/the-violence-question-taking-a-jump-to-altruism
  11. Veganic plus Animal Sanctuaries plus Ethics, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/veganic-plus-animal-sanctuaries-plus-ethics
  12. Vegan Politics and Animal Politics, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/vegan-politics-and-animal-politics
  13. From individual to individual, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/individuals
  14. Female-identified human individuals and species-derogation, http://www.simorgh.de/objects/female-identified-human-individuals-and-species-derogation/
  15. Aspects in the deconstruction of speciesism, http://www.simorgh.de/objects/aspects-in-the-deconstruction-of-speciesism/
  16. Just thoughts, 17th Oct 2012, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/just-thoughts-17th-oct-2012
  17. Three questions I would like to ask any true animal advocate, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/three-questions
  18. Vegan speciesism, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/vegan-speciesism
  19. Common sense as a basis for morality in Animal Rights, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/common-sense-and-morality-in-animal-rights
  20. Vegan for justice, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/vegan-for-justice
  21. the “personal choice” debate and homocentrism, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/choices_and_homocentrism
  22. An e-memorial and about people who simply deny that their harboring speciesist attitudes when you confront them, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/speciesism-deniers
  23. Fragment … thoughts on what we think are “atrocities”, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/fragment-thoughts-on-what-we-think-are-atrocities
  24. thoughts ( 23 – 05 – 2012 ), http://simorgh.de/niceswine/thoughts-23-05-2012
  25. Can you think without your professor? http://simorgh.de/niceswine/can-you-think-without-your-professor
  26. Never rebut an enlightened anthropos – how dare you! http://simorgh.de/niceswine/enlightened
  27. I know about Human Rights and I know about Animal Rights, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/i-know-about-human-rights-and-i-know-about-animal-rights
  28. to impose a state of being “as if” parasitical, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/to-impose-a-state-of-being-as-if-parasitical
  29. An end to philosophical validity can lie in what we perceive to be reality, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/philosophy-and-opinion
  30. What about the cult of flesh, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/what-about-the-cult-of-flesh
  31. the ethics of food : eating : what’s wrong with vegan convenience foods? http://simorgh.de/niceswine/the-ethics-of-food-plant-based-understanding
  32. universities – ‘institutionalized’ thinking, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/universities-institutionalized-thinking
  33. but compassion, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/but-compassion
  34. All included, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/all-included
  35. Why Suckerberg is a speciesist? Cos there are too many of them, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/why-suckerberg-is-a-speciesist
  36. Envy, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/envy
  37. Three snippets … moving beyond the horizon of homocentrism, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/three-snippets-moving-beyond-the-horizon-of-homocentrism
  38. Speciesism isn’t … , http://simorgh.de/niceswine/speciesism-is-not
  39. Animal Rights: why there is a similar concern for establishing them alongside human rights, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/animal-rights-a-similar-concern-as-human-rights
  40. Where do you draw the line, when asking others to act up – ethically?! http://simorgh.de/niceswine/where-do-you-draw-the-line-when-asking-others-to-act-up-ethically
  41. Does life have to be tragic? http://simorgh.de/niceswine/does-life-have-to-be-tragic
  42. on the multiplicity of meaningfulness, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/the-multiplicity-of-meaningfulness
  43. to pretend not to understand anything at all, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/to-pretend-not-to-understand-anything-at-all
  44. animal rights pornography – definition, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/animal-rights-pornography-definition
  45. Taste, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/taste
  46. a human who truly understands, won’t seek dominance beyond the human realm, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/a-human-who-truly-understands-wont-seek-dominance-beyond-the-human-realm
  47. revolución requiere la inocencia, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/revolucion-requiere-la-inocencia
  48. Society is politics, but only as what regards their political philosophy, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/political-philosophy-fragment
  49. The Parallel, fragment about the position humans take towards “nature”, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/the-parallel
  50. Could be a u-turn, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/could-be-a-u-turn
  51. From hell to hell, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/from-hell-to-hell
  52. WHAT ARE “RIGHTS”? http://simorgh.de/niceswine/what-are-rights
  53. Sidetracks and main tracks, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/sidtracks-maintracks
  54. Food ethics, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/food-ethics
  55. Perspectives on priorities, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/perspectives-on-priorities
  56. “After all we are all human” – yes, but we are all so different, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/after-all-we-are-all-human-yes-but-we-are-all-so-different
  57. The Buddhist paradox, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/the-buddhist-paradox
  58. Not in my ethics, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/not-in-my-ethics
  59. Slivers, fragments, http://simorgh.de/niceswine/slivers

Intermittent experiences vs. reductionary perspectives

[…] Sociology does not question the social interaction between humans and nonhuman animals. They don’t scrutinize that relation from their viewpoint, because the view held on the human relation towards animals is already set in its core by the natural sciences.

The hierarchical empire built by the natural sciences though […] rules out every need for any further examination and consideration of this relationship. We do not see the direct relation between humans and nonhuman animals.

A most typical exemplification of that inability to relate on a basic and fundamental level of ‘common sense’ can be pinpointed in the difference between relating to nonhuman animals in terms of “joy” versus “love”: as in “animals equally feel joy” or “we can both love”, and “pain” versus “violence”: as in: “animals can equally feel pain” or “we can both experience violence”. Love is an intermittent sentiment, violence also bases on social interactivity (though in that negative sense), whereas “joy” is located only in the subject we attribute the feeling to, and the same goes for “pain”. We – nonhuman animals and humans – understand the questions of LOVE and VIOLENCE. Whereby “joy” and “pain” are reductionary names for the “same” thing. […]

Antispeciesist Animal Sociology

From: Edition Farangis: Animal Autonomy E-Reader 1