top
Animal Liberation
Animal Liberation
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

The intersectional cultist's toolbox

by Jon Hochschartner
This is a critique of cult-like behavior among intersectional animalists.
As I've mentioned in previous articles, I believe intersectional animalists, of which I count myself one, have done great work in recent years, questioning old dogmas in order to build a more inclusive and thus more effective movement. But recently I've noticed a disturbing trend in which this intersectionalism has solidified into an unthinking fundamentalism, similar to the aura of infallibility that surrounded the work of Gary Francione, say, five years ago.

If we wanted to play the call-out game, which these intersectional cultists enjoy, I could point out their insistence on the use of ever-shifting academic and politically-correct jargon was, to use their liberal, rather than socialist term, 'classist.' Most people on Earth have no time to research the latest whims of the Tumblr activists. Indeed, when one sees the laundry list of oppressions that must be fought, a list that eventually drifts into the absurd —such as the ableism implied by calling an argument 'stupid' — class supremacy or capitalism is rarely mentioned by this crowd. I could name many people here, but I won't. Not because I'm noble. But because I want to try to avoid making these debates needlessly personal and thus useless.

Instead of playing the call-out game, I'd like to identify what I see as the key tool in the intersectional cultist's toolbox. That would be ad-hominem attacks, which, intentionally or not, create an atmosphere of mutual recrimination and fear that makes dialogue and learning impossible. The most common form these attacks take among this crowd is: "Your opinion is invalid because you are..." Fill in the blank. Your opinion is invalid because you're white; your opinion is invalid because you're a man; your opinion is invalid because you're straight; your opinion is invalid because you're cisgender. And on and on.

You see how that works, right? The intersectional cultists are attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself. That's what ad-hominem attacks are. I'd add, again, that rarely do these intersectional cultists hurl class-based insults at speakers or writers and that's telling. But in an ideal world, I'd like to see no ad-hominem attacks, even of the variety I might be more sympathetic to as a socialist. Because while a person's background and experience has profound influence on their opinions, that's not a reason to dismiss them out of hand.

Besides being fundamentally ad-hominem in nature, a problem with this form of argumentation is that it tends to treat oppressed or exploited groups as a monolith. When an intersectional cultist blasts a writer or speaker for holding the 'incorrect' view on a given subject of particular relevance to, say, Black people, the unstated assumption is generally that there is a unified, Black view on the subject. This, of course, is rarely the case. If white people should defer to Black writers on a particular set of topics, as was suggested to me in the wake of my last article on intersectional cultism, who should they defer to? Fredrik deBoer pointed out in a comment I can't place, and thus quote, there are plenty of Black, left-wing critics of the sort of identity politics these intersectional cultists espouse, such as Adolph Reed and Douglas Williams. But for whatever reason their opinions don't seem to count.

Finally, besides the "Your opinion is invalid because you are...." line of attack, there's an entirely different form of ad-hominem argument which is a favorite of the Tumblr crowd. That's the old, "your opinion is invalid because I've dug into your digital history and found something problematic." This too was directed at me after publication of my last article on intersectional cultists. In particular, someone found an idiotic article I wrote for my college newspaper six years ago. Perhaps I'm inordinately wicked, but I'm of the firm belief that everyone has, will be, and is problematic in different ways, but comparable degrees. Either way, again, let's point out the intention here is to avoid the actual argument at hand by diverting attention to the person making the argument.

So if we must call-out anything, let's call-out ad-hominem attacks. It's a lazy, bullshit method of argumentation which frankly sends people running away from the animalist movement, and left-wing activism more generally, out of fear, exhaustion and disgust. Further, and just as importantly, it creates an atmosphere in which the type of learning the intersectional cultists claim to be in favor of is impossible.

§Intersectional animalism descends into cultism
by Jon Hochschartner
Intersectional animalism has solidified into stultifying dogma.

There was a time, not too long ago, when the animalists who took an intersectional approach were the critical thinkers in the anti-speciesist movement, challenging old dogmas. But recently this intersectionalism seems to have solidified into an unthinking fundamentalism. 'Intersectionality' has become the mindless mantra of the day, as 'abolitionism' was only five years before. To in any way challenge its precedence is to flirt with exile from the movement's mainstream. There are certain opportunistic bullies who wield intersectionalism like a cudgel to settle personal scores and raise their own profiles. But much of this ideological policing is done by a second tier who believe that in toeing a certain line bullies might focus their attention elsewhere.

Let me provide an example. It's admittedly minor, but I see similar behavior all around me in the animalist movement. Recently, a piece of my writing was scheduled to appear in a beautifully-produced zine. That was until I got an email from the editor, asking me about a recent article I'd written in a different publication about what I saw as the excesses of intersectional animalism. "Unless you are able to clearly articulate how the aforementioned essay does not belittle the efforts of womxn across revolutionary class, race, gender, political, ability, and species movements," the editor wrote, "I will not feel comfortable including your piece on terrorism in animalist movements in the upcoming issue." Admittedly, I did not handle this inquiry well and was quite defensive. But it felt like an interrogation, like I was before some leftist Joe McCarthy, demanding to know whether I was now or had ever been problematic, to reference a Dan Savage tweet.

Here's a little background on the offending article. In it, I explicitly defended intersectionality. For instance, in the opening paragraph, I wrote: "(Intersectionality) is obviously a worthwhile endeavor on its own terms. And simply from a strategic level it’s good in that a more inclusive struggle will be bigger and thus more effective." Further, I pointed out that in the animalist movement I was mostly known for my essays on intersectionality. "In as much as anyone in the anti-speciesist movement is familiar with me," I said, "it’s through my writing that sought to foster dialogue between socialists and animalists." But that's not where I got into trouble. Here's a short passage I think fairly encapsulates the article's heresy: "Internal criticism is necessary for the health of any movement. But recently, I believe the ratio of external to internal criticism has gotten out of whack. In today’s animalist environment, writers seem to receive recognition primarily based on the degree to which they minimize animal concerns in the face of human issues such as class, race, and gender, and criticize other animalists for doing so inadequately." So, to recap, my article got bumped because I suggested intersectionality, like anything else, might be capable of excess. Again, it's not really a big deal. But for a group that supposedly prizes open criticism, today's proponents of intersectional animalism seem remarkably hostile to even mild dissent themselves.

As I mentioned previously, this is just one example of a growing trend I perceive in the animalist movement and the left in general. For instance, Will Potter, the investigative journalist and anti-speciesist, tweeted a link to a news story about protestors carrying a pig's head at the Ferguson anniversary protests. Accompanying this link, he wrote, "Violent cops aren't 'pigs.' Pigs are intelligent and compassionate. Not props for media stunts." I think this position should be considered pretty innoccous by any self-respecting — or more accurately, non-human respecting— animalist. But apparently this wasn't the case. Another relatively high-profile anti-speciesist took Potter to task, lambasting the journalist for 'tone policing' the Black Lives Matter movement, and seemed to insinuate Potter was racist for doing so, as if one can't support a struggle while also offering criticism. This, it must be pointed out, is the sort of "you're either with us or against us" logic that leftists justifiably lampooned when it was invoked by conservatives like George W. Bush. If the animalist movement forbids itself from even offering constructive criticism of fellow leftists who parade around with the corpse of a murdered non-human, it's not worthy of calling itself 'anti-speciesist.' For some intersectional animalists, it seems intersectionality only goes one way.
by Anim
There have been a few articles questioning the logic of so-called animal activists/vegans who seem to have forgotten the nonhuman aspects of the word vegan.

Paul Watson has remarked about so-called purist vegans who ask "what about cows?" when a lion killed by hunters receives public attention. Such an attitude from a vegan didnt exist 15 years ago. It was what you would expect from hunters or other exploiters, not those concerned about nonhuman animals.
But how do we know there people are sincere?
A so-called anti-speciesist who sees no problem with people using a pig corpse in a derogatory fashion is not an animal activist. And probably never was.
Efforts to attack the animal rights cause from within using "fifth column vegans?" Not far fetched at all.

Gary Francione is one prime suspect, Nathan Winograd is another. James McWilliams was singled out by a Grist article not too long ago.
Intersectionality appears to be similar to what hunters, furriers, vivisectors, whalers liked to say against animal activists: "activists are racist/sexist, they hate people. Humans come first."
Francione himself has implied this along with the old vivisector slur: "animal activists are crazy." But he uses the term "moral schizophrenia" instead.

by Beth
I have always been a intersectionalist animal rights activist. Feminism, anti-fash, human rights, etc. But it just doesn't make sense anymore.

Why are we helping the oppressors of animals?
Why are we focusing on the rights of a single species who oppress every other species?

It would be like putting mens rights before womens or white problems before the oppression faced by PoC. It makes no sense. We must stop aiding the oppressor, before we help humans they must stop oppressing animals.

I have come to the conclusion we must put non-humans first.
by Roland Vincent
Most advocates for human rights are unlikely to consider ending animal oppression as a precursor to advancing human rights, let alone placing the interests of animals on a par with those of humans.

Our interest in intersectionalism should be to advance social revolution.

Capitalism is the primary cause of animal exploitation, enslavement, and murder. Socialist societies kill and consume half the animal per capita as do capitalist societies. So even socialists with no interest in compassion would cause less cruety than do capitalists.

Moreover, centrally planned economies remove profits from animal animal agriculture, thereby eliminating incentives to exploit our fellow creatures.

Revolution is the only possible hope for animals.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network