Why we are against cetacean sanctuaries. Part 2 : Slavery with another name (1/2)

Another striking contradiction besides denying personhood itself is that sanctuaries are factually captivity in practice. Not merely because they work as enclosed, captive spaces, but more broadly because the general structure of organization and legitimation of these future facilities are similar to dolphinariums : an institution owned and managed by some, where hired “caretakers” will exclusively manage an enclosed population, in the broader context of a money-driven society. Sanctuaries are based on the same questionable relation of powers, ideas and arguments which the dolphinarium industry are traditionally founded on, as we will see in part 3 and 4. This means that most activists are currently making the mistake of supporting the very practice much of them have been fighting against for decades, with most of the very same arguments used by the captivity industry to legitimate their handling.

But there is also a mountain of theoretical and empirical evidences showing that the global activism actively collaborated with actors of the dolphinarium industry to transform dolphinariums into sea-side, touristic, money-driven facilities, despite how the “official” and most common claim inside of our activism insists on how cetacean sanctuaries should be non-lucrative and non visitable[1]. In other words, cetacean sanctuaries can only exist through a collaboration with the dolphinarium industry or by mimicking its principles. These will be listed on the second part with detailed description and history of each case (and could be the subject of regular updates in the future).

The theoretical evidences

We can already draw several conclusions from the context and the material necessity of such places which contradict the usual narrative of future cetacean sanctuaries being necessarily non-visitable and non profit based, as it is often claimed or perceived as an ideal by their proponents.

First of all, there are few doubts that if sanctuaries manage to appear at all they will indeed either replicate the dolphinarium model, or rather they will appear out of recycled dolphinariums or companies from the dolphinarium industry. This makes sense for several reasons :

1. Sanctuaries can’t maintain themselves without a dependable source of steady financial input.
   

They will need to be positioned as visit and fee based places to function at all. While difficult to assess precisely, this seems at least intuitively reasonable when we know not only the cost of maintaining enough caretakers, infrastructures etc. but also of daily feeding a cetacean population : it appears dubious that donations only could provide for the maintaining of a significative captive population, especially killer whales. Organizations seeking to create sanctuaries indeed already gave number seeming to confirm this intuition : for instance, Munchkin Inc, the main company funding the Whale Sanctuary Project, assessed the cost of a sanctuary to 500 000$ per year and 5 millions $ to found, an argument they use to justify its nature as a touristic, paying entrance based facility, contrary to the activist motto that sanctuaries should be both non profit and non visitable as not to turn into a blatant monetary exploitation of cetaceans as well as to prevent stress and harassment from visitors.

2. The monetary based visit system can easily be justified upon diverse pretexts traditionally used by the industry itself.
   

For instance upon the idea of maintaining the future captives alive, “under the best conditions and care”, as well as to support conservation efforts, research of “wild cetaceans” or pedagogy. In other words, money-based entrances or logic are easy to legitimate in the name of certain values or necessities and shouldn’t be difficult for these future owners to brush away. It is as well reasonable to believe that the industry will put up much efforts in surviving by changing their form, and that it cost less effort and money to transform such places and retake their basic organization and administrative structure rather than creating one anew. Such collaboration being again easily justified over pragmatics. Part of the problem is of course that such defense is deeply hypocritical, as the activism traditionally fought against these very arguments when used by the industry on the rightful pretext that captive animals didn’t taught anything about the original lives of said species, and more broadly that global conservation efforts were either problematic (in zoos) or a pretext with no factual grounds (for dolphinariums). The argument of care was also dismissed, again rightfully, on the grounds that no amount of care would compensate for the factual suffering of captivity. Proponents of sanctuaries are oblivious of the same problematic when applied to the infrastructure they seek to set up and manage.

3. Most sanctuaries will naturally take an ambitious, corporatist Sea-World like form

It appears necessary that if sanctuaries were to happen, they wouldn’t ideally function as a decentralized conglomerate of little facilities, but rather as a few extremely large areas encompassing hundred of ex captives from numerous closed down dolphinariums, owned and managed by one or a few powerful companies in collaboration with activist organizations such as the WDC. This makes sense from a management, strategic and economic point of view. First, they want to take as many captives as possible in such places. It would be easier for them to ship all captives to one massive place, instead of doing it “piece by piece” to small places scattered along the countryside. In particular, It also would be a way for huge companies such as Blackstone to “replace” massively profit-generating parks such as Seaworld : a big sanctuary with hundreds of captives would generate much more tourism and therefore profit than a hundred of little places scattered ones over the world. Such places would be then nothing more than renewed, glorified SeaWorlds, using a certain entertaining and attractive image to boost entrances while using the argument of care as a shield to legitimate such methods. They could also work as “rehab and release” facilities, and as such deem some of the captured cetaceans “unreleasable” on based on “expertise” to maintain a constant stock ; a well known practice from SeaWorld or facilities such as the Clearwater Marine Aquarium or Solangi’s Dolphin Research Center.

     4) As dolphinariums, seaside sanctuaries will be attractive assets to whoever decides to host or own them

The other argument weighing over the idea that sanctuaries will take such a form is that such ambitious projects would easily garner the interest of certain countries or regions as powerful tourism and employment generators, as many modern “swim with” facilities in the caribbean or south east asia already do. It would be easier to convince a local region or government to install a big sanctuary which can generate profit and employ several hundred locals rather than a small-scale one, housing for instance just a couple dolphins rather than one hundred or one killer whale instead of a family.

Though, this doesn’t exclude the possibility that little dolphinariums could surf on this tendency to legitimate themselves as rescues place or sea-side sanctuaries. This could be already the case in Russia, where a local dolphinarium company started to sue competing coastal dolphinariums to confiscate some of their captives, in the name of the deplorable conditions of life of these other cetaceans(quote). Rescue-based coastal dolphinariums such as the Clearwater Marine Aquarium or Moby Solangi’s Dolphin research center could easily take advantage from this tendency to expand by “green-washing” themselves with a sanctuary facade, effectively expanding over the fallen niche left by the collapse of SeaWorld. The industry will simply adapt the current market to a new form that can satisfy the customer, even as an activist.

This doesn’t necessarily and rigidly mean that the intention of leading activists such as Marino or Visser are profit based, or entirely so at least. The problem being more subtly that by encouraging sanctuaries, they are unfortunately seeking to replicate the same relations of power dolphinariums are founded on, with cetaceans being recognized as the legitimate property of owners, specifically company or institution-like systems, confined to a captive space, and managed and ruled through an use of training by caretakers (which is at least a necessity for medical check-ups and possible treatments). The mentality behind sanctuaries is fundamentally similar to dolphinariums, and uses the same dubious arguments and sophisms systematically supporting them (“instinct loss” ; cetaceans pictured as weak and “needing care”, myth of “the wilderness”, negation of cetaceans as both individual and social members ; all points we will see further in). Of course, all this is always being validated thanks to an implicit use of hierarchy and power in our own societies, particularly in the “anti-cap” cetacean activism as we will see in part 7.

In other words, the sanctuarized cetacea are still slaves, because they are encompassed in a relation of power which is slave-like : they are a state recognized, rightful property of some individuals granting themselves such a right of power and exploitation over these captives, having to submit themselves to the will of staff and ‘management’, with force if necessary “for their own good”, that they accept or not such a fate never being taken into account. There’s, again, neither freedom nor equality possible in sanctuaries, nor as it was the case in dolphinariums : both occur in a human-dominated society, where human bias and desire for power rules and where the cetacean point of view is never acknowledged.

Notes :

[1] http://www.satyamag.com/nov04/paquette.html
"• No commercial activity involving animals occurs (including, but not limited to, sale of animals, animal parts, by-products, offspring, or photographic opportunities; no public events for financial gain and/or profit);"

 https://www.thedodo.com/community/lorimarino/dolphin-and-whale-sanctuaries--826851031.html
"  A genuine sanctuary provides an environment in which the residents can lead some semblance of a satisfactory life closer to the wild setting. In a real sanctuary like PAWS, the only interest is in the welfare of the residents; they are not used as a means to an end, i.e. for profit or publicity."

Shaming and how to detect it

1) Leadership and hierarchy partly cause this

Some activists naturally start to assume an unofficial, but factual and observable position of leadership, being “followed” by hundred or thousand of people online as well as people which ideas and actions can have a varying degrees of influence over users. It appears that shaming and silencing attitudes in online discussions mostly emanates from such people toward others assuming a lesser position of influence in certain groups. In itself, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since some people are just better at organizing actions, massively spreading information and ideas and connecting with other people to create projects. But it can have downsides when such people will seek out to obtain power and create factions inside of groups perceived as social structures. Even if we’re sure that most activists don’t realize this fact and don’t fundamentally hold bad intentions, since they are persuaded that such “war of factions” or violent attitudes are for “the good of dolphins and whales”, it in fact holds negative consequences by preventing going forward in our objectives of protection and change, as well as preventing any discussion about certain polemical topics most users consciously realize are a problem : otherwise, they wouldn’t be so reactive and aggressive against the one questioning them ! This also shows the fact that such violent attitudes concern everybody. While I did experience that personally as an activist opposed to sanctuaries and “sea pen” based “rehabs”, such an attitude is a problem which can and does concern any activist with any idea, including one perceived as more controversial or progressive. As a victim one can be tempted to replicate such violence towards others and fall for a vain “war of factions” against certain “leaders” inside of one’s activism, instead of a broader politics of discussion and expansion of ideas whichever the side. Even if one disagrees with others views, everybody should be listened to and their ideas should be discussed reasonably without being downright dismissed as invalid. I personally know people with staunch “pro-captivity” or “pro-whaling” views or who disagree with the notion of cetacean sapiency or personhood who chose to discuss these topics reasonably with different minded activists such as myself instead of ridiculing or violently dismissing them. To go forward, we recommend this excellent article by the writer Jo Freeman called “the tyranny of structurelessness”, which addresses the subject of “unofficial” leadership and dominative structures in activisms in the context of feminism in the seventies, while foreshadowing a lot of what is currently happening to us in our "pro-cetacean" activism.

2) Expertise shouldn’t be a sledgehammer argument against disagreement It is often argued that if one isn’t an “expert” on the cetacean topic, then it is of no use discussing these subjects. We as activists strongly disagree with this premise which is often used to avoid addressing certain topics (my views were as such often dismissed by being asked if I was a “marine biologist”). A lot of key matters, for instance topics on cetacean psychology or ethics, are extremely complex and difficult to address with certitude, and as such need to be broadly discussed : it makes poorly sense that somebody, simply because of one’s title or experience, can have an absolute authority on these specific matters, more so because these have strong ethical implications such as legitimating or not inside of our societies such practices as captivity or hunting. Such an argument is what is commonly called an “authority argument” : one is right because of its purported importance as an individual in our society over a certain topic. Instead, we believe that ideas and knowledge should be discussed in details by activists. This means that if somebody makes a claim, even if this person is a “30 years dolphin expert”, they need to detail it, source it, back it up with facts or theories and be able, and willing, to discuss it with others. Remember this, as this is an issue of prime importance to understand why a lot of commonly heard claims to “silence” or “shame” others for their views are in fact invalid. This doesn’t mean that “expertise” has to be totally dismissed by activists. Factually certain people do hold a certain experience or extensive knowledge on some matters they studied for years - and it tends to be the case in most users holding a form of influence online, as much of them are activists who campaigned for several years or decades and accumulated a certain amount of knowledge on the topic, or people with a scientific background. But as such everybody should be able to share this knowledge and explain, in detail, why they hold an opinion over another : expertise should be a perk to go forward in ones objectives rather than a portcullis against the questioning or discussion of certain views and practices. One doesn’t have to forget that while science has a certain rigor, it is also subject to constant change and challenging by its practicioners.

3) Activist circles are like microsocieties

It is important to realize that such “leadership” and “shaming attitudes” emerging in circles that are supposed to be havens of peace, love and betterment of one’s ideas isn’t nonsensical. Even if one doesn’t spontaneously realize this, such online groups and network of people naturally work as societies on a lesser scale, with their own implicit rules and structures of domination. All activists naturally fill a working role (mostly signing petitions, sharing articles, participating to "tweetstorms" or events) on a massive scale, while a few, more rare and knowledgeable, write the articles and petitions and generally organize campaigns and groups with other activists of such “importance”. Even if some of us (such as myself) seeks to avoid domination and abuse stemming from it, this stratification is unavoidable. But we can make such a “mass” speak up and more generally go beyond the fear of being “silenced” by activists perceived as more knowledgeable or “important” on cetacean matters. This problem doesn’t just concern massive “hub” like groups (such as Dolphin way, Taiji Dolphin Action Group or Freedom for Lolita, amongst others) or massively followed activists personal pages, but also tinier groups with more alternative views such as the one I founded, Freedom for all cetians, which creation was prompted by my criticism of “sanctuaries”. In my case, I realized over time that most of the people following my page never speaked up and that at least some of them had reticence joining or commenting on much of the conversations I held with some others regular posters because they felt that they weren’t knowledgeable or bright enough to discuss certain topics. Such a realization prompted me to question most of my methods and views on how to be an activist and to find ways to encourage people to freely speak up and show their disagreement while maintaining an atmosphere of self-respect and not falling for the trap of demagogy. It shows the danger of sectarianism and exclusion when certain people see themselves as the victims of shunning or as the holders of marginalized views and that change should be a matter of expansion rather than a matter of “who is in my faction or not in the activism”. In other words, in such a context, nothing could have really impeached me to “shun” or “shame” people I consider as being in my “faction” inside of my “group” if they were to contest some of my own views, as if we talked of treason of a leader deciding which positions are official : such an attitude, while tempting (because we see ourselves as the victims of a wider ideology seen as dominant, or in the case of most “leaders” as threatened by the spread of opposed views, while aiming for a bigger ethical objective), is to be overcame and questioned. 4) Activists violence tends to be seen as normal While circles dedicated to the protection of whales and dolphins could be seen as a places promoting peace, facts tells otherwise. Beyond the views of most people linked to ecology or animal welfare themes generally preaching non violence, verbal and symbolical violence as a general rule are not only widespread within those circles, but widely encouraged and seen as the norm. More broadly, an activist is by definition encouraged to be violent, and this violence is perceived as legitimate or noble if the activist somehow appears as a victim. It’s in the etymology of the word itself : an activist has to “act” before thinking, and is expected to shout, talk loud, “wave fists” and be insistent and provocative. This also has the consequence of dismissing any intellectual talk or the questioning of certain actions as an activist is expected to act rather than think : more generally a certain anti-intellectual discourse tends to be the norm inside of our circles, and people are encouraged to let their emotions take over as if it was a form of emancipation (“No ! Don’t listen to them, shout as loud as you can !” as if it was something noble that had to do with freedom of speech). Thinking for oneself and more generally making the choice of thinking about a problem rather than acting up is ill perceived. Such expectation of “what an activist should look like”, is unfortunately not just something proper to activists themselves but of nearly everyone, as most people expect activists to look like this and to fill such a role : as such, even well-minded activists seeking dialogue could find themselves confronted to the hostility of people outside of these circles who are regularly confronted with our activism violence and hatred (for instance Faroese natives daily called murderers or bloodthirsty savages or receiving murder threats by activists). An activist with a more temperate or intellectual take on a problem is barely seen as an activist. Of course, this marginalization of people seeking to think and ponder before acting is a form of shaming which is part of the issues we seek to emphasize here. Keep also in mind that appearing as aggressive tends to legitimate one as a victim. Hatred sells. But shouldn’t we start understanding it as something we should be ashamed of, which only show us as immature and childish rather than “important” or “noble”, and which we’re ought to modify for the sake of the ones we have sworn to protect ?

5) Conclusion ? Don’t fall for violence. Is is easy to fall for hatred and dogmatism and violently dismiss others views or positions in the name of ones ideas and objectives. It is far more difficult to recognize one can be wrong in one’s attitudes and that going forward in one’s objectives also means to listen and to give the others a possibility to express themselves. I recognize (as a particularly passionate and bad tempered activist) that this is a very hard task to do and that people tend to mix that up with personal issues and experiences. It took me years to fully realize these issues as well as to recognize my wrongs and it is still an ongoing process. Nonetheless, we believe everybody, especially people assuming a position of leadership in these circles, should be aware of these issues and find ways to actively fight them and create another type of activism, more open, peaceful and self-aware. When I advise you not to fall for violence, I mean it in two ways. One, don’t fall for the other violence, whether mine, this 30 years old expert or that charismatic leaders with a big mouth that writes in cap locks. If you feel you are being silenced or dismissed for your views, if you feel they want to shame you because you disagree with them, speak up. Talk about it. But also find ways to get around the obstacle ! If they want to “shut you up”, insist, continue to ask and talk. Question the dismissive answer. I personally enjoy diverting responses with humor : when I get shamed for the tenth time for my views on sanctuaries by being asked if I “want to dump dolphins in the ocean” I answer with a plain “yes” : this way the user, which expected me to shut up or to give an angry or frustrated answer, will just be so flabbergasted that it will mirror the absurdity of its attitude. Two, and obviously : don’t fall for your own violence. One can be tempted to replicate the structures of oppression on others, to “shame the shamers” : the bullied doesn’t have to turn into the bullies. This is precisely where one doesn’t have to fall. We have to go beyond the “them” : while there are factually leaders and lurkers, mainstream and marginal views, this problem concerns everybody. When one debates or talks about certain topics or with people seen as the “shamers”, one doesn’t have to replicate the angry attitude : we have to go beyond it, using the diplomacy and reason much of us still lack in their conversations. And of course, all these writings and advice aren’t just for the victims of such attitudes, but also for the people following more "mainstream positions and which are used to angrily dismiss the others, so they can realize their own errors and think about their own responsibility as users. Such a campaign is here to unite rather than divide. All of us are activists which need to think and go beyond our weaknesses and failures for a greater good. (Updates and corrected 30/10/2016)