The
Vegan Rainbow Project
December 2018
The roles of violence and male privilege in the anymal rights and liberation movement and the ways in which they shape activism and activists...
Lisa Kemmerer is a philosopher-activists and professor of philosophy and
religions at Montana State University Billings. Her work and activism
include anymals, the environment, and disempowered human beings. To date,
“Dr. K” has written and edited nine books and is tirelessly working on a
series of projects, while teaching full time.
In this interview, she talks about her way to activism, the value of verbal
activism, how sexism and male privilege still prevail in the movement, her
survey on harassment and discrimination in nonprofit organizations, and her
studies in religion. She further discusses her new work on the role of
violence in the anymal rights and liberation movement, and the ways in which
it has shaped both our activism and activists.
----------
Q: How did you first become involved in animal rights or animal
liberation activism?
Tom Reagan writes in one of his books that there are three ways of coming
into activism and one of them is that you are just born that way. I think I
was just born that way, but it was fostered by my parents.
That sensitivity to nature and anymals was in my parents. It was just a
matter of time until everything aligned to push me straight into the
movement.
Q: Do you feel that your activism focus has shifted over the
years?
It has shifted so much! I would say that I grew up more firmly in the
environmental camp, and there was also some pretty strong feminism in my mum
and my sister. And with my father as well. My sister sent me a flyer on
downed cows. That was what pushed me toward a change of diet and a clearer
focus on anymals.
That flyer pushed me towards anymal activism, but it was many, many years
until I started to look back and recognize that environment and feminism
needed to be incorporated. I ultimately recognized that they were very much
part of animal activism, that they were overlapping, and needed to be
addressed together.
As a white person racism was a harder journey, a longer journey, and it took
more work to understand. Being open and caring isn’t enough. There is a lot
of learning that has to happen, and a lot of struggling inside, to recognize
white privilege. Seeing my privilege has really helped me to understand what
many men seem to go through with feminism, and what many people seem to go
through with speciesism.
So this struggle is a good thing. As humans, we are all in this
together—speciesism, that is—and there is really not an anymal activist out
there who hasn’t had to go through this same process in some ways, with
regard to human privilege.
Lisa kneeling on the ground, carfully hugging a white
chicken at Woodstock Farm Sanctuary U.S. Lisa has her head tilted and her
cheek is lightly touching the chicken's head. The chicken is standing
upright with her eyes half closed as seems to enjoy the affection. -
Photo credit: Lisa
Kemmerer
Q: Did you begin to look into the interconnections of oppressions
before you started your PhD?
What pushed me off to get my doctorate was sexism I experienced in
Anchorage, Alaska, where I was working. This made me really want to explore
oppression, but inside, what mattered to me wasn’t the fact that I was
oppressed as a woman, but the oppression that I saw in anymals. Yet in the
end I have finally come to see that any form of oppression supports all
forms of oppression.
Q: Speaking of anymals – a term that you coined – which role do you
think does language play in advocating for others?
I introduce my students to the term anymal, even on the 100 level. This term
encourages them to ponder how we use “animal” and why we don’t include
ourselves. We all know that we are animals, but we speak about animals as if
we weren’t. It is so much a part of the speciesism, and the exploitation,
and “othering.” So, I think language is very important.
I came up with the term anymal when I was a kid. This term was part of
language activism in my life before my teenage years. I guess I understood
the power of language and its importance even prior to high-school.
My sister and I were reforming our language in ways that empowered women
when we were young. I remember we used the term “WOW” for “women of the
world.” Looking back, it seems we were trying to empower ourselves in a
world that we knew disempowered us.
Image description: Powerpoint slide that describes the term "anymal". It
reads: "Anymal: Animals from every species other than the species of the
speaker/author. If a chimpanzee signs "anymal", humans are included but
chimpanzees are not. Anymal avoids using "animals" as if human beings were
not animals, avoids dualistic, alienating terms (like "non" and "other"),
and avoids cumbersome terms (like nonhuman animals and
other-than-human-animals) - Photo credit: Lisa Kemmerer
Q: In terms of empowering women and distributions of power, do you
feel like things have changed over the years? For instance, in “Speaking up
for Animals” you wrote that although most attendees at the first animal
rights conference you went to were women, most speakers were male. How does
this compare to the last conference you went to?
There are more women in more positions of power, but sexism has not changed.
So while I see more women in more leadership positions, there is also more
sexism. I think the mechanism of that is that, in my lifetime, I have
watched anymal activism go from a real side-line, marginalized,
hardly-anyone-knows-about-it sort of a movement to one that even here in
Montana people know about. It has become a very well-known form of activism.
I think that is the main shift.
What I found in my studies is that women almost always begin social justice
movements. When you look back through time, you can clearly see that it was
women who formed the backbone of pretty much every social justice movement
at its beginnings. And then, as movements become more powerful, money comes
onto the table, and paying jobs, and then men often step forward to take
these paid and empowering positions.
Women have even encouraged this in the past because they understood that in
a sexist world, men’s voices carry legitimacy. There was a time in the 80s
when women in the movement specifically tried to draw men into the movement
and put them in positions of power. In such a sexist culture, without men at
the helm, we would have been dismissed as a bunch of weird, whacked-out
women caring about chickens and bunnies. Male voices gave the movement
legitimacy in our sexist culture.
I think there is another important factor at hand that I would mention: men
are taught from their earliest years to be providers, that it is their job
to earn money and to support others. One of the reasons that females have
been the activists is that working for free and doing services has always
been a woman’s responsibility, whereas it has been the men’s responsibility
to earn money, to have a job, and to provide for others. So in many ways,
each is fulfilling the roles that our culture has provided.
Of course sexism is not necessarily the fault of contemporary men. As with
racism, it is not my fault that racism exists - but as a privileged white
person, I am responsible for helping to bring change. We all need to work
together to bring these changes. No one group, whether males or white
people, can make these changes. We have to work together, and we are all
responsible for doing our part. Men in particular need to work on sexism;
whites need to work on racism; all people need to work on speciesism.
Q: Do you feel like growing the movement and moving from grassroots
activism towards big animal rights organizations has reinforced the dominant
culture and with it encouraged sexism in the movement?
We’ve become mainstream. And we’ve wanted to become mainstream. Obviously it
is important to draw in more people. Social justice activists must appeal to
the larger population. If they don’t, they are not going to attract
activists. But with the larger culture comes sexism and racism and
heterosexism and transphobia...
To appeal to the mainstream, most social justice groups foster sexism. As
I write in the book I am working on: What man is going to join an
organization that he feels emasculated in, when there are other groups at
hand? As a movement, we want to be more mainstream, we want more people, but
we don’t want the sexism, the racism, the ageism, the ableism, the
heterosexism, the transphobia, or any other form of oppression. So we have
to be aware of what is happening, why it happens, and we have to consciously
fight these isms.
Q: What would be your approach to fight sexism and other forms of
oppression in the movement? How can we address these issues as individual
activists or in a group?
The first thing is awareness - education. We need to read, listen, watch
videos, attend conferences, and have these topics on the agenda for activist
meetings - and apply what we learn. We can also ask those further along the
path what they would recommend for reading. Then we have to apply what we
learn. We can also talk to others instead of reading, but we have to be
careful not to exhaust people. I mean, it is not the responsibility of women
to educate men about sexism any more than it is the responsibility of people
of color to educate white people about racism. I am usually fine with
talking to people, if they are truly interested. It drives me crazy when
people ask me questions and it is clear that they are not open to what I
have to say - they just want to defend their point of view. I have no time
for this. It is exhausting and it’s a dead-end.
It is important to make sure that women have safe spaces in organizations,
that people of color have safe spaces - spaces where people can meet without
privileged people to talk about what is going on in the movement (and much
more).
Organizations need clear policies on oppression, publicly posted. Solving
the problems at hand is a very active process. First, education; second,
implementation.
Close-up picture of Lisa speaking in the Netherlands - Photo credit: Lisa Kemmerer
Q: Is this something that is widely applied? You created a
survey, which explores how harassment and discrimination in the movement.
What did you learn about these processes from the study?
I did create a survey to study privilege, harassment, sexism, racism—all of
these—inside the movement. (You can find the survey here or you can find it
at CANHAD.org under “speak out” and “share your story”. You will need about
20 minutes.) The survey is showing that policies are lacking in our
movement, and that even where they exist, they are blatantly ignored. The
most important thing about the survey is that it is collecting hard data. As
far as I know, it is the first survey ever done to specifically explore
racism, sexism and other forms of oppression inside our movement. It is
central to the book I am working on.
We have known about sexism in the movement for at least 20 years, probably
30. But without hard data, it was always easy for those in power to push
aside concerns, to ignore complaints, to pretend that sexism is not a
problem in this movement. But let’s face it - just as I don’t feel racism,
men don’t feel sexism. So we need this data to be able to say “here, this is
what women are reporting, these are their experiences.” With data it is no
longer a matter of just comment and hearsay. We will have the data, we will
have the information. I want this information so that sexism and racism are
longer a hidden part of our movement - isms will be exposed from within.
Q: Was there anything from the survey that particularly stood out to
you?
The information I am gathering is heartbreaking. It is heartbreaking to hear
what the movement is doing to women. We know that women are the backbone of
the movement, and what they are reporting is experience after experience
that is damaging them, driving them out of the movement. The survey shows
that this is just as true for racism. There are also reports of fat shaming,
women who recognize that they are not being promoted because they don’t have
the classic look to appeal to men in power. There are all sorts of terribly
sad, shocking, results coming in. Sad and shocking especially in a movement
where we tend to expect compassion.
Q: In your talks you mentioned that people who are subjected to
discrimination and harassment in the movement often don’t want to speak out
because they feel that this would harm the anymals and the movement? How
would you respond to those with this view?
Let me read a short blurb from the CANHAD testimonial page, which anyone can
access on the CANHAD website. It reads: “I have not spoken up about it
because I fear others’ opinions. I still want to be an activist in a
relatively small community and I especially fear not being believed nor
taken seriously. I do not want to hurt the movement either, although
rationally I know I am not the one doing the hurting.”
It is a very typical experience that those who are being oppressed are loyal
to the movement. They don’t want to hurt the movement, so they won’t expose
oppressors. But obviously if activists are being hurt, we have to root out
the problem, we can’t just keep looking the other way. If most activists in
this movement are women – and they are – and they are experiencing damaging
sexism, then this is hurting the movement. We are hurting our ability to
bring change by failing to stop racism and sexism - and ableism, ageism,
heterosexism, etc.
Consider this quote from a different source - from my survey: “These
experiences have damaged me and my life. They have taken away my confidence
and strength in the movement. They have left me filled with no self-esteem,
no confidence and full of self-hatred!” How can an activist who is harmed in
these ways be an effective activist?
Q: It really is shocking, looking at all the testimonies... I have
read through some of them and they are truly heartbreaking.
Many women answering my survey and also those leaving testimonials at CANHAD
are naming names. It is fascinating to see which men have done what. And
journalists have also exposed some of the problems going on in the movement,
exposing people like Nick Cooney, Paul Shapiro, Nathan Runkle, Wayne
Pacelle, and the rape scenarios at DxE. This doesn’t happen by chance - it
requires organizing. It requires time and effort to expose these powerful,
problematic people.
Q: I know. It is just hard being dismissed when we try to talk about
interconnected oppression in more general terms.
Yes, but the good news is, when I used to teach students about harms to cows
and pigs and chicken and mice and rats, many people just weren’t open to
these concerns. Now, when I explain how anymal suffering is connected with
world hunger, oppression of immigrants, women - more people take these
problems seriously. Especially those who – and I live in a very conservative
area – align with the Christian tradition. They are hearing something they
can’t ignore.
Q: True. You have been researching and writing a lot about
religions, in particular with respect to religious attitudes towards
anymals. Do you feel that this is something that is often overlooked?
Yes, this was part of the focus of my graduate studies. But probably the
primary reason for this focus is that I recognize it as a key channel for
bringing change that our movement has largely ignored. Our movement tends to
dislike religion, perhaps because people of faith talk much of love, but we
see their cruel and unloving behavior towards anymals. I understand that.
But we need to rise to the occasion. If there is a button we can push and
it’s about to bring change, we need to push the button. Religions are just
such a button.
Approaching people with an understanding of their religious commitment is a
critically powerful tool. The catch is, we have to understand religions. I
have studied not just one religion, but all the major religions, and some
smaller ones as well. When I meet people I can talk to them from inside
their tradition, and I can ask them pressing questions. And they know that
their answers represent their religion - and their own level of commitment.
Religious people are usually serious about their faith commitment, making
our work as activists easier. Somebody who doesn’t align with a religion can
say: I really don’t care about the suffering. But I have never found anyone
inside a religious tradition who would say such a thing. And when people of
faith recognize that they care, and honestly see and hear what’s happening,
they are called to change - or they are forced to face the fact that they
really don’t care about anymals or their religion’s teachings. And this
involves salvation!
Of course there are many people outside religious traditions who are just as
committed to compassion and love as those within. The difference is that
when someone is overtly connected with a religious community, it is a
public, community commitment. When such a person is forced to see hypocrisy
in their life, it stings - it matters.
Q: We have now talked about how you got into activism, your previous
work on sexism and religion, as well as your survey. Are there any other
projects and research areas you are currently working on?
I am actually working on two books. One is dealing with the sexism and male
privilege in the movement, including a chapter on racism (not written by
me). The second focuses on violence and the place of violence in the
movement, tying into ecofeminism and the innate violence of our culture. I
am in over my head... as usual.
Q: Could you talk a bit more about your current work on violence and
the areas in which you seek to expand this?
This has been part of my evolution as an activist. I would have been counted
among those who felt that violence was a reasonable response to anymal
suffering and exploitation. And with feminist studies and studies of
eco-feminism, I now understand that this response is largely about the
culture that I live in.
I see two threads that are important to follow: One is the demonizing of
activists who use soft forms of violence, and the other is a culture that
pushes us towards violence. Oppressing activists (ag-gag laws for example)
makes it more difficult for activists to stay within the law.
I am not done with the book. It will take time to sort out what it all means
and where my studies lead.
Q: When you talk about violence, do you also talk about violence
towards inanimate objects?
I spent a lot of time discussing what violence is. I am very clear that
violence against property is still violence. I don’t give it another name.
Yet this type of violence is definitely distinct from violence against
individuals.
Some activists deny that doing something like smashing computers is
violence. But when you reflect on domestic abuse and men throwing things
around the house to terrorize a partner - that’s violence! He may never
touch her, but he is still violent. Smashing things is intended to terrify
and to harm - and it does both.
I don’t think we can ever say that aggression against property isn’t
violence. It is, and it does many of the same things. It works in the same
ways. But this doesn’t mean that we can’t have different categories of
violence. We must. It is a different form of violence when you directly hit
someone versus when you harm them by throwing things around the room.
Q: Departing from that statement, do you feel that we should step
away from all forms of violence in the movement?
I don’t know yet. Research leads me ways and I never know where it is going
to lead me. Let me say that I can be very clear that I would have said ‘no’
previously, but I don’t know where I am going to end up at this point.
It really is hard to say because when I look at domestic abuse and how
violence is used, I tend to lean completely away from it. On the other hand,
when I look at the violence going on in the industry and I see methods of
peaceful protests increasingly closed - what direction are we going to turn?
It is a really complicated question.
I also don’t want to see activists in prison. We can’t do nearly as much
good there. It hurts them, it hurts the movement, its ugly. I don’t want to
see that happen, so I keep that in mind.
It tends to be our younger people who choose this form of activism. This is
even more painful, because young people have years ahead of them. Instead,
they are languishing in prison. I remember one who went on a hunger strike
and died in prison because he refused to eat. Where is this beautiful person
that was an activist for good causes and instead is dead?
Q: That is a really powerful but also sad statement to close on. Is
there anything else at this point that you would like to share?
Sadness is much of a part of our movement. So I will end with this: We have
to look after ourselves. Protect yourself. You don’t have to watch suffering
just because you are in the movement. You don’t need to witness anymals
suffering, you don’t need to watch videos that show the abuse of anymals.
Over time these things wear on us. Please protect yourself. Please stay
strong and healthy!
There are many people these days who don’t bother with books. So I am so
grateful for those of you using contemporary media and doing what you are
doing to help get the message out. My studies are nothing if I can’t reach
people, so thank you.
Q: Thank you so much, that really means a lot! So, from your
perspective, what can we do to protect ourselves and stay strong?
For me, long walks with my dogs - their presence, their cheerfulness, their
willfulness, their antics. My rescued mutts pull me away from my focus on
all the things that I wish I could change in the world.
Our movement is currently leaning toward subjecting activists to suffering,
and it’s going to be years until we know the effects of this, but from my
personal experience - decades of activism - this is not a good idea. We have
to be healthy and strong. We need to support each other and be positive -
this is one of the reasons why we need to fight sexism, and racism, and
ableism, and ageism and heterosexism and all the other -isms out there. We
need to work together and support each other to stay healthy and strong
against the oppression we seek to change.
Return to: Animal Rights/Vegan Activist Strategies