Karen Davis, UPC United
Poultry Concerns
June 2018
To deny our kinship with creatures who are other than human risks estrangement from the living world to a pathological degree. To feel slighted that a hen or a cow or a sow could love her children as a woman loves hers is petty and dissociated from reality.
A woman employed on a chicken “breeder” farm in Maryland wrote a letter
once to the local newspaper berating the defenders of chickens for trying to
make her lose her job, threatening her ability to support herself and her
daughter. For her, “breeder” hens were “mean” birds who “peck your arm when
you are trying to collect the eggs.” In her defense of her life and her
daughter’s life, she failed to see the comparison between her motherly
protection of her child and the exploited hen’s effort to protect her own
offspring – for the hen a losing battle.
Animal farming erects an unbridgeable boundary between humans and “animals,”
especially farmed animals. The “them” versus “us” pervades industrial
farming which is rooted in traditional farming. The poultry industry takes
pains to ensure that producers convey “the message that hens are distinct
from companion species to defuse the misperceptions.” It isn’t that
agribusiness elevates “companion species” particularly, but that dogs and
cats are the basis of the $30 billion pet food industry that serves as a
dumping ground for millions of newborn male chicks (“hatchery debris”) and
slaughterhouse “refuse.” See:
Who is In Your Dog’s Food?
Male chicks are suffocated to death in plastic bags or ground up alive at
the hatchery. Photo courtesy of The Animals Voice
The idea that humans are a vastly superior order of being, distinct from
the rest of creation, pervades society despite Charles Darwin’s
demonstration of the evolutionary continuity of living creatures. Even among
“progressives,” interference with the presumption of human superiority and
exceptionalism can ruffle feathers. Hostility among human groups is an
integral part of human history, but just as bickering individuals and
nations come together against a common enemy, so most people are united in
defense of human supremacy over, and radical separation from, all other
forms of life.
This prejudice can be seen in the resentment of some core feminists toward
any suggestion that their suffering and other experiences are comparable to
those of nonhuman females. They believe that cross-species comparisons crimp
their identity as unique. They do not want to share the “privilege” of
oppression. An article I recently wrote titled “The Hen is a Symbol of
Motherhood for Reasons We May Have Forgotten, So Let Us Recall” was rejected
by a progressive publication for implying similarities between human mothers
and chicken mothers. The editors considered the comparison a slur against
women. Carol J. Adams, in “The Feminist Traffic in Animals” in Neither Man
Nor Beast, describes how far some feminists will go to deny other animals’
capacity for meaningful social relationships, and even their fear of death,
to which she responds that these beliefs “are possible only as long as we do
not inquire closely into the lives of animals as subjects.”
Mother hen with her chicks in the Florida Everglades. Photo by Davida G.
Breier
While some women may wince at comparison with their female counterparts –
their sisters – in nature or captivity, men, on the other hand, relish
linking themselves to “wild” animals, by which they mean powerful male
predators – jaguars, pumas, wolves and the like whom they iconize as
masculine. What man chafes at being likened to a Big Cat?
Feminists who resent comparisons with nonhuman female animals whose behavior
is similar in all relevant respects are not liberated in my view. An
environmentalist named J. Baird Callicott in 1980 dismissed all farmed
animals categorically as having been bred to “docility, tractability,
stupidity, and dependency. It is literally meaningless to suggest that they
be liberated,” he wrote in “Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair,”
Environmental Ethics 2:311-338.
This sounds a lot like a stereotypical Victorian man’s view of women – and
it is every bit as factitious. Yet even today, some feminists are battling a
demeaning image of themselves as the equivalent of a mere “farm animal,”
which is itself a demeaning and ignorant caricature.
Though science remains speciesist, the fields of cognitive ethology and
evolutionary biology are expanding our understanding of how intimately we
are connected to the other animals on the planet. In “The Chicken Challenge:
What Contemporary Studies of Fowl Mean for Science and Ethics,” Carolynn L.
Smith and Jane Johnson present the science showing that chickens
“demonstrate complex cognitive abilities”:
The science outlined in this paper challenges common thinking about chickens. Chickens are not mere automata; instead they have been shown to possess sophisticated cognitive abilities. Their communication is not simply reflexive, but is responsive to relevant social and environmental factors. Chickens demonstrate an awareness of themselves as separate from others; can recognize particular individuals and appreciate their standing with respect to those individuals; and show an awareness of the attentional states of their fellow fowl. Further, chickens have been shown to engage in reasoning through performing abstract and social transitive inferences. This growing body of scientific data could inform a rethinking about the treatment of these animals. pp. 89-90.
In May, 2018, Marc Bekoff, PhD, professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, published a Mother’s Day plea for mother cows on the Psychology Today website. In “What Would a Mother 'Food' Cow Tell Us About Her Children?” he writes that he is “freely using the word ‘children’ rather than ‘offspring’ or ‘young’ that are usually used when writing about young nonhumans. These youngsters are, of course, their children, and many behavioral patterns have evolved so that they receive the best parental care possible.”
This mother cow and her calf were torn apart for slaughter. Courtesy of
United Poultry Concerns
To deny our kinship with creatures who are other than human risks
estrangement from the living world to a pathological degree. To feel
slighted that a hen or a cow or a sow could love her children as a woman
loves hers is petty and dissociated from reality. I agree with animal rights
author and attorney, Jim Mason, who in a recent interview advises against
“separation from our kindred animals. “ He urges us to “practice a sense of
kinship by seeing behaviors that we share with other animals . . . and see
these as your own experiences. Dwell on that – emotionally and spiritually.
Feel that sense of the things we have in common with these others.” Read the
complete EVEN interview with Jim Mason.
I hope that any feminist, or anyone at all who relates to the attitude of a
male farmer who snorted, “Who the hell knows or cares what a hen wants,”
will reconsider. Such sentiments of alienation will not make the world a
more just place for any sentient being.
Return to: Animal Rights Activist Strategies