This is not a review but more of what I experienced while reading this book. There are a few spoilers but I have been cautious to not ruin your future reading experience.
Beasts of Burden is one of the best books on Intersectionality in Animal Rights literature. It is also one of the few reads which presents intersectionality in the right light i.e not using it as a tool to make a case for human supremacy.
Sunaura Taylor makes a compelling case for the deep relationship between animal and disability ethics. She offers a nuanced assessment between entanglement of ableism and anthropocentrism and interrogates how they operate together.
Here are some points that cultivated my thoughts
Animality - Being the beast
Speciesism is bad. Humans trap, abuse, exploit and kill animals for their convenience, pleasure and culture. However, humans do that to other humans as well (give or take the ‘kill’ part). The psychological reason why humans do that is because of the assumed supremacy that they place on themselves.
Let’s define community
Community is a group of persons having a specific quality which can be their sex, cognitive abilities, race, caste, creed, religion, sexual orientation, species and whatever else I have missed and whatever other differentiators yet to be assumed.
Let’s define Dehumanisation
Dehumanisation - Ability to see the other group (sometimes individual), who is not a part of the specific community, incapable of traits that they are indeed capable of.
In case of speciesism, it is
suffering and
the will to live.
When we dehumanise (this term itself is human centric but will address that later) animals we simply tell ourselves a false narrative, from a moral standpoint, that animals are less than us. And this is precisely how we dehumanise humans as well - that those humans are less than us.
But if “ they” are less than us, then who are “they” more like? Animals.
Animality is defined in Merriam Webster as a quality or nature associated with animals. While who is human and who is non-human is well understood from a biological standpoint today but at different points in time various human populations have been identified as bestial, more animal than human - classifications that were inextricably entangled with definitions of inferiority, savagery, sexuality, dependency, ability/disability, physical and mental difference, and so forth. The difference is more than biological. It is based on our perception.
If we manage to see someone at a lower pedestal then we feel it is justified to treat them in ways which go against their interest. The mindset that nurtures humans to do so is - ‘Less human-like and more animal-like’
Remember reading about the signboards during British Colonialism in India
“Dogs and Indians are not allowed”
This mindset has been used throughout the history of our existence to exploit the “other, inferior” community which can be animals or a group of humans. And based on this mindset, the chain of oppression perpetuates. And hence one can argue that speciesism is the root of all things evil.
The fight against speciesism is deep rooted. It is acknowledging and accepting animality. It is acknowledging the moral value of being an animal or more animal-like than human.
Animal Ethics and Ableism
Ableism is prejudice against disabled people that can lead to countless forms of discrimination. Ableism characterizes people who are defined by their disabilities as inferior to the non-disabled. Some common characteristics are language, cognitive capacity like rationality, body structure and body movement. When it comes to animals, these are the same traits that are benchmarked to declare them inferior beings. (Side note - Some religious enthusiasts talk about souls but let’s keep that aside for now.) Justifications for human domination over animals almost always rely on comparing human and animal abilities and traits.
Now this is not a claim or comparison between animals and non-human disabled humans. The atrocities that animals face today are not comparable to any other group. No humans, at least not legally, are bred, abused and killed for human consumption. However, Taylor makes a solid case for us to question the systems that degrade and devalue both animals and disabled people—systems which are built upon, among other things, ableist paradigms of language and cognitive capacity.
Conflict with Veganism
Before we proceed further, let me clarify that Speciesism is not acceptable no matter what the situation is. However, we also need to acknowledge the carnist world we live in where it is difficult for vegans in many ways to avoid animal cruelty to full extent. Isn’t that the reason for including the word “practicable” in the definition of veganism. And it is our collective endeavour to eradicate speciesism and eventually the word “practicable” from the definition which means that veganism becomes the norm.
As activists we often come across dishonest non-vegan excuses and we become dismissive. However, reading this book made me reconcile with the fact that there are legit cases where practicing veganism is difficult, if not impossible.
Taylor makes me see this conflict through a disability lens. Some disabled people have little to no control over their food choices, such as those in nursing homes, or those disabled people who rely on other people (sometimes people they were unable to choose) for their care and meal preparation. If you are a vegan then think about that family member who would not care about veganism despite your best effort, and now imagine this hypothetical situation - You are disabled and your food preparation depends on that family member. Sadly, it punches a major conflict.
It brought tears to my eyes when I read about Dona Spring. Dona was a disabled, animal rights activist who founded DISABLED AND INCURABLY ILL for Alternatives to Animal Research (DIIAAR)
“Since I myself have a disability and I use medications that have been tested on animals, I felt a responsibility to research whether or not this was really necessary to test these products on animals, because the thought of it was horrid to me. . . . There’s something so contradictory about people wanting to relieve the suffering of people at such a horrid expense of suffering of animals.”
Her work was way ahead of time. She entered into a potential conflict between the animal rights movement and disability rights movement. Despite being a disabled person who had benefitted from animal testing she chose to challenge other disabled people who believed animal research was the only way to bring cure to them. This would have been excruciatingly tough (we can only imagine or not even that).
However, her conflict didn’t end there. During the last few years of her life she faced another ethical dilemma where her body’s need came head to head against animal rights. As she grew ill and less mobile due to her disability, her body started rejecting plant protein. In her last phase of life, she had to eat small quantities of seafood.
Dishonest arguments can be made about Dona being a hypocrite, however she is a vegan true to the cause of animal rights. And this paves way for a beautiful thought that -
Those who live under genuine constraints where they do not have control on what they eat and wear, can still advocate for animal rights and be morally vegan.
Side note - the reversal of the above statement is what we, unfortunately, face every day and is the core of speciesism
Final thoughts and Ecofeminism
Ecofeminism is a branch of feminism that puts forth the idea that life in nature is maintained through cooperation, mutual care and love. The basic tenet is that all oppressions are related and ecofeminist target plurality of resistance to challenge oppression on multiple levels for various groups.
“Accordingly, ecofeminism is deeply political and realizes that a diversity of experience and expression, like diversity of life forms, is a necessary goal of ecofeminism. There can be no single set of answers, no one portal through which to enter…To insist on a single ideology, or a single praxis, is to deny the tremendous complexity of the problems that centuries of patriarchy have created.”
- Linda Vance
This sounds inclusive and idealistic but not definitive. I am still a novice on Ecofeminism literature (and still learning). And with that premise, I have discomfort with some of its philosophies which is evident in Taylor’s work.
Some difficult questions within the Animal RIghts’ space that Taylor acknowledges and also criticizes other scholars for their position but fails to resolve or give a firm stance herself because of her Ecofeminism viewpoint. Taylor leaves some key points hanging to conjecture or indecision like domestication of animals. She challenges Gary Francione for his position on domestication who holds the view that humans have a moral obligation to the domesticated animals that already exist but slowly we should phase them out and not breed them anymore. Taylor on the other hand supports the institution of domestication of animals.
“Now that these domesticated animals are here with us, do we really want to enact another coercive force over their individual lives and species by leading them to extinction based upon assumptions that their lives are less worth living than wild animal lives? I find the idea that the solution to the wrongs of domestication is to erase the very populations we have harmed unsettling.” Taylor
However, serious objections to domestication are sidelined. Similarly, the chapter on service dogs offers no critique to the purpose of breeding dogs but rather focuses on her relationship with her service dog who was also disabled. It offers a powerful narrative but misses to address the systematic injustice in the breeding industry.
Last note from a readability perspective, I felt that the book could have been better organized. That being said, I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in learning about animal rights literature for its nuanced and intriguing viewpoint.
Comments