Given the fact that the planned document is huge, with a lot of sources and details to be added, we decided to release each part like TV series episodes, one part after another, before abstracting them in a bigger document. This way, we can immediately address certain issues, and the process is more practical and comfortable for both us and the readers. (Authors : Julian Aranguren, Andrew Randrianasulu, Milla de Villiers)
Classical activism against cetacean captivity is mainly founded on the notion that cetaceans are to be understood as persons, as people or as being “sapient”. As activists we agree with these views, but it is precisely because we do so that we believe sanctuaries (as “enclosed spaces where ex captives are planned to be placed indefinitely without the captive’s consent”), sea pens and other similar measures to be ethically unacceptable.
The personhood contradiction
First, our activism must be prepared to face its own contradictions when it comes to its discourse about cetacean personhood. One of them is a paradox between the main claim of cetacean personhood used by most of our activists who, at the same time, with the same enthusiasm, support the advocacy for sanctuaries, sea pen based “rehabs” and other oppressive measures such as stranding euthanasia, invasive tagging, capture for weighing, net use and captures for medical checking or “rehab and release” operations. If cetaceans are to be understood as people or persons then they are to be also granted a right for autonomy and freedom, whether as individuals or as societies, because if we assume that they are people, then they are intellectually capable of understanding complex situations and problems, control their own emotions, and communicate with us to some extent. In a wider sense because by people we also mean members of a society, and societies which can take responsibilities for certain tasks such as adopting or helping a crippled or lost cetacean. A cetacean is as such never alone but part of a network as members of a society living under certain rules. Such rules should then be recognized and acknowledged, and these individuals should be understood as members of a society rather than subjects of processes that they can’t manage. In other words, the concept of them having control over themselves is found to be unacceptable because it relies on a patronizing stance that denies them the possibility to decide on their own fate or to organize themselves as societies with their own rules to cope with the challenges they face. No trust is given to the cetaceans, which are dealt with as objects rather than as persons. Keep in mind that this contradiction is never acknowledged or addressed by the concerned parties, whether this is done consciously or not.
This in fact mirrors several realities of the past, including colonial Europe or the evolution of women’s status, a parallel we will highlight in part 10. For instance, during the XIXth century, women weren’t able to vote because they weren’t deemed intelligent enough to take political responsibilities by a mostly male dominated society. Arguments relying on their protection from aggression by males or moral corruption were used to justify their tutelage in various areas, such as financial dependency from their husband or the obligation to be accompanied by a man when going outside. Another strong parallel is colonial Africa, were indigenous people were compared to children, incapable to governing themselves without resorting to cannibalism or internal warfare and needing the tutelage of a “civilized” european power, such as colonial France or Belgium. In a broader sense these categories of humans were somehow compared to children needing the guidance of a more powerful figure. This is a pattern we still see in our activism when it comes to talk of cetaceans which are often referred to in very patronizing ways, with an emphasis on the pathos (“the poor little dolphin is lost without his mom”...) to legitimate their captivity in the name of protection and care. This negation of autonomy doesn’t usually comes from a blunt denial of their intelligence, but from a series of more subtle conceptions and claims that we will question part by part through these series of documents.
The personhood contradiction
First, our activism must be prepared to face its own contradictions when it comes to its discourse about cetacean personhood. One of them is a paradox between the main claim of cetacean personhood used by most of our activists who, at the same time, with the same enthusiasm, support the advocacy for sanctuaries, sea pen based “rehabs” and other oppressive measures such as stranding euthanasia, invasive tagging, capture for weighing, net use and captures for medical checking or “rehab and release” operations. If cetaceans are to be understood as people or persons then they are to be also granted a right for autonomy and freedom, whether as individuals or as societies, because if we assume that they are people, then they are intellectually capable of understanding complex situations and problems, control their own emotions, and communicate with us to some extent. In a wider sense because by people we also mean members of a society, and societies which can take responsibilities for certain tasks such as adopting or helping a crippled or lost cetacean. A cetacean is as such never alone but part of a network as members of a society living under certain rules. Such rules should then be recognized and acknowledged, and these individuals should be understood as members of a society rather than subjects of processes that they can’t manage. In other words, the concept of them having control over themselves is found to be unacceptable because it relies on a patronizing stance that denies them the possibility to decide on their own fate or to organize themselves as societies with their own rules to cope with the challenges they face. No trust is given to the cetaceans, which are dealt with as objects rather than as persons. Keep in mind that this contradiction is never acknowledged or addressed by the concerned parties, whether this is done consciously or not.
This in fact mirrors several realities of the past, including colonial Europe or the evolution of women’s status, a parallel we will highlight in part 10. For instance, during the XIXth century, women weren’t able to vote because they weren’t deemed intelligent enough to take political responsibilities by a mostly male dominated society. Arguments relying on their protection from aggression by males or moral corruption were used to justify their tutelage in various areas, such as financial dependency from their husband or the obligation to be accompanied by a man when going outside. Another strong parallel is colonial Africa, were indigenous people were compared to children, incapable to governing themselves without resorting to cannibalism or internal warfare and needing the tutelage of a “civilized” european power, such as colonial France or Belgium. In a broader sense these categories of humans were somehow compared to children needing the guidance of a more powerful figure. This is a pattern we still see in our activism when it comes to talk of cetaceans which are often referred to in very patronizing ways, with an emphasis on the pathos (“the poor little dolphin is lost without his mom”...) to legitimate their captivity in the name of protection and care. This negation of autonomy doesn’t usually comes from a blunt denial of their intelligence, but from a series of more subtle conceptions and claims that we will question part by part through these series of documents.
An outcome advocated by most
As a matter of fact, one of the most striking traits of this reality is that many of the strongest proponents of cetacean sanctuaries are scientists, activists and/or charismatic leaders which are themselves leading lights in the “anti cap” activism as well as the advocacy for the recognition of cetacean personhood. The orca behaviorist Ingrid Visser, the cognitive neurologist Lori Marino, the philosopher and writer of the “Declaration of Right of Cetaceans”(1) Thomas White or the famous activist and ex-trainer Richard O’Barry are some of them. Far from being an argument in favor of sanctuaries though, this pattern seems to be more of a symptom of a largely broken understanding of the problems cetaceans face, and also of the underlying relation of power behind our beloved “activism” which we ought to expose as activists ourselves.
Such figures don’t rely on the exact same paternalistic discourse to justify this use of sanctuary as was used in ancient Europe. While past oppressive discourses mostly insisted on a belittling of the other intelligence, notably stressing a purported reduction of brain size in women and black people etc. to support their theories as well as other aspects of biological science, our activism paradoxically relies a lot in the exact opposite : a strong insistence on cetacean brain size or properties, and a constant will to pound on cetacean intelligence, sometime even insisting on them being “smarter than humans” in order to assess their personhood and defend their freedom. We will see that the problem is far more subtle and structural, and is less the conscious fault of these people than their unfortunate blindness to mostly unconscious and widespread anthropocentrists systems of thought which are shared by nearly everyone in our societies and cultures, and which are indeed difficult to demystify without a thorough and careful analysis.
As a matter of fact, one of the most striking traits of this reality is that many of the strongest proponents of cetacean sanctuaries are scientists, activists and/or charismatic leaders which are themselves leading lights in the “anti cap” activism as well as the advocacy for the recognition of cetacean personhood. The orca behaviorist Ingrid Visser, the cognitive neurologist Lori Marino, the philosopher and writer of the “Declaration of Right of Cetaceans”(1) Thomas White or the famous activist and ex-trainer Richard O’Barry are some of them. Far from being an argument in favor of sanctuaries though, this pattern seems to be more of a symptom of a largely broken understanding of the problems cetaceans face, and also of the underlying relation of power behind our beloved “activism” which we ought to expose as activists ourselves.
Such figures don’t rely on the exact same paternalistic discourse to justify this use of sanctuary as was used in ancient Europe. While past oppressive discourses mostly insisted on a belittling of the other intelligence, notably stressing a purported reduction of brain size in women and black people etc. to support their theories as well as other aspects of biological science, our activism paradoxically relies a lot in the exact opposite : a strong insistence on cetacean brain size or properties, and a constant will to pound on cetacean intelligence, sometime even insisting on them being “smarter than humans” in order to assess their personhood and defend their freedom. We will see that the problem is far more subtle and structural, and is less the conscious fault of these people than their unfortunate blindness to mostly unconscious and widespread anthropocentrists systems of thought which are shared by nearly everyone in our societies and cultures, and which are indeed difficult to demystify without a thorough and careful analysis.
Why are sanctuaries being proposed and advocated for ?
The main arguments or concerns underlying the defense of sanctuaries tend to mostly be that captive cetaceans cannot live “in the wild” anymore. This point will be mostly addressed in part 5 by showing how it is often forgotten that cetaceans are uniquely defined by their capacity to help and care for their disabled and their young, as well as by their tendency to adopt orphans or disabled individuals, disabling many of the usual concerns about cetacean capacity to cope outside of human tutelage, but also mostly showing how their social realities must be taken in account. It is also addressed in part 7, which will mainly emphasize our underestimation of the cetacean capacity to cope in the environments where they evolved to thrive in, and it is our own biases as humans that push us to underestimate them. They are assumed to have lost their capacity to survive in “the wild” (the questioning of this term, as well as the practice of cetaceans being called “wild animals” despite their person status, will be addressed in part 6), as they are deemed to have “forgotten how to hunt”, as they are thought to “forget their instincts in captivity”, captive born cetaceans are thought to have no survival skills and other similar conclusions. Part 3 is going to demystify the psychological arguments at the core of these stances which deny autonomy to cetaceans in the name of a purported “loss of the innate”. The support of these facilities also stems from an exaggerated fear by activists of the danger that free cetaceans may face (sharks, red tides, storms…), any alternative idea to using captivity being then perceived as an irresponsible act (often leading to the shaming of dissident activists, addressed in part 9). As such, cetaceans are expected to be put through a process of “rehabilitation” inside penned oceanic areas, usually under the guidance of a cetacean trainer. It is expected that they must “relearn their survival skills”, a particular stress being put on hunting - the questionable science behind these statements is addressed in part 4. Hypothetically, the one that would, for some reason, be deemed as “unreleasable” by a form of expertise, either because physically crippled in some way or because they would be assumed to be somehow too mentally damaged, would be condemned, without their consent and without giving them a choice to remain in such seaside facilities which are supposed to be as close as possible to their “natural environment”, under the “care and love” of expert handlers until their death (the fact that sanctuaries are being presented in such seducing terms while not mentioning the darker part of their functioning, sterilization in particular, will be questioned in part 8). Such facilities are supposed to be non-profit, but reality shows a far murkier tableau where games of power and money seeking are inherent mechanisms of these future institutions, as we will see in part 2. Further, Part 11 will finally address cetaceans as society members, and indeed as individuals to relate and weave relationships with, something the mainstream discourse is unable to provide, finally showing the absurdity of our concepts about cetaceans and suggesting a new way of dealing with them as individuals.
While being open minded on the possibility of change coming from such people and being open to dialogue, we aren’t blind to the obvious relations of power behind these positions, nor to the blatant hypocrisy inherent in such a stance. In other words : aren’t sanctuaries the product of anthropocentrism and “speciesism” as much as dolphinariums, zoos or circuses are ? Sanctuaries act then as the last rampart of accepted inequality between man and cetacean - and more broadly of inequality between human and non humans - inside our activism. Sanctuaries and its corollaries (notably sea pen “rehabs”) are one of the last and newest frontiers of anthropocentrism to abolish.
We believe that in light of viewing cetaceans as a people and as individuals endowed with choice, free will, and genuine societies, these measures are cruel, unnecessary, patronising, and constitute a genuine social injustice. Our point being that sanctuaries - as well as sea-pen based “rehabilitation” do not respect the very discourse of freedom and equality our activism sought to put forward since more than five decades to put an end to the industry they are now, in fact, collaborating with.
While being open minded on the possibility of change coming from such people and being open to dialogue, we aren’t blind to the obvious relations of power behind these positions, nor to the blatant hypocrisy inherent in such a stance. In other words : aren’t sanctuaries the product of anthropocentrism and “speciesism” as much as dolphinariums, zoos or circuses are ? Sanctuaries act then as the last rampart of accepted inequality between man and cetacean - and more broadly of inequality between human and non humans - inside our activism. Sanctuaries and its corollaries (notably sea pen “rehabs”) are one of the last and newest frontiers of anthropocentrism to abolish.
We believe that in light of viewing cetaceans as a people and as individuals endowed with choice, free will, and genuine societies, these measures are cruel, unnecessary, patronising, and constitute a genuine social injustice. Our point being that sanctuaries - as well as sea-pen based “rehabilitation” do not respect the very discourse of freedom and equality our activism sought to put forward since more than five decades to put an end to the industry they are now, in fact, collaborating with.
To be continued ….
http://www.cetaceanrights.org/
No comments:
Post a Comment