(note: this is my old draft, I posted it on Facebook in our group and send it via email few times already, but while our blog definitely not most visited - may be this text eventually will find its reader)
Ken Levasseur and his “Third Phase program” :
Ken Levasseur and his “Third Phase program” :
Ken’s Levasseur, an american scientist now living in Hawaii, is both famous for his liberation of two captive dolphins from Lou Hermann’s laboratory where he worked in in 1977, than for his “Third phase program” project : his views and papers are being completely ignored by most of the activism since several years, and we think this particularly unfair, as his ideas and projects were paradoxically highly praised by several actors of the activism less than a decade ago. The fact that his views are being ignored is symptomatic of a larger issue with disregarding alternatives or movements going beyond sanctuaries as the “only solution” for captive cetaceans.
1) It relies completely on having a genuine, equal relation between two species - if the humans fail somewhere, the dolphins have all the rights and possibility to leave.
2) It has put forward the idea of making some unusual high-level, two-way (where dolphins/cetaceans become real practitioners, whose words matters!) communication as part of social reality.
2) It has put forward the idea of making some unusual high-level, two-way (where dolphins/cetaceans become real practitioners, whose words matters!) communication as part of social reality.
Wording was aimed at scientifically-minded auditory, and some problems were left out of main articles in attempt to provide just most important points. It was in 1996! Unfortunately, work on those ideas stalled, and even with my small additions on replacing (gradually?) ‘feeding’ with cooperative hunting (fishing) and finding new ways of doing medicine, and a bit more polishing on how to show language and how to choose first subset of language to use together - those remain more like ‘nice ideas’ than complete plan from A to Z. But may be making plan from A to Z on very beginning is wrong exactly due to unflexibility of such plans. Russell Hockins for example hopes at least Orcas can master use of interspecies language without spending too much effort on simplest concepts. [2] Only practice will tell.
In Ken’s own words [1]: “According to this proposal, three basic (but related) changes must occur in the classical dolphin holding facility management plan. The first change must be to the use of social reinforcement, exclusively, in training and communication with dolphins, rather than food reinforcement with its food deprivation as motivation control. This change is implemented through a language program utilizing a human whistled language. The second change must be a "feed at will" policy that can be expected to double the food budget at participating facilities.”.... “Human language does more than command a subject to behave a certain way. True language communicates abstract social signals between practitioners which involve positive as well as neutral and negative attitudes. Human language allows the subject to reject commands while maintaining integrity! The result of this form of abstract communication is the creation of complex cultural systems as well as the reinforcement of social bonds between language users. The use of immersion language training, instead of operant conditioning in a new approach to interacting with dolphins, would help create the social bonds needed to make the replacement program work. The flexibility and specificity of language would remove much of the frustration and resulting stress from close human / dolphin interactions. A truly positive environment for learning and exchange could evolve under such a program.”.... “It is still scientifically possible that dolphins may someday demonstrate communication abilities at or near the adult human level using a human whistled language or a deciphered dolphin communication code. For this reason dolphin subjects must be accorded the same respect as humans if they are to be used in language experiments and programs. Because of this potential and the need for trust in order for the social approach outlined above to work, this respect must be built in and implemented from the planning stage of developing the language and human / dolphin interaction programs. “ ..”The Third Phase open-ocean programs may use enclosures where the dolphins can go and be secure, day or night, but access to and release from the enclosures must be available to the dolphins.” ..”Obviously for a program like this to work, the dolphins will have to want to stay or return to man-made enclosures. The best incentive for this is excellent treatment along with human companionship, as well as the obvious, interest generating activities. Under these conditions, these speaking / whistling dolphins would literally become ambassadors. “
Of course, initial idea was a bit too tourist-based for my new views, yet we are not forced to follow just one text, there are others related philosophical works about finding our new place in the world, where tourism will be replaced by ..pilgrimage? Hard to name it accurately - something deliberately uneasy, and wonderful, with rules of interaction based on understanding of this wonder and relative fragility of it. See Anthony Weston’s ideas, for example : “Environmental Ethics as Environmental Etiquette: Toward an Ethics-Based Epistemology”, published in vol. 21 of magazine Environmental Ethics, summer 1999, here is quote from p. 126-127, - “To begin with, certain kinds of self-fulfilling prophecies turn out to be crucial in ethics. There is, in particular, a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy in which one of the main effects of the “prophecy” is to reduce someone or something in the world—to make that person or thing less than they or it are or could be, to diminish some part of the world’s richness and depth and promise—and in which this reduction in turn feeds back not only to justify the original prophecy but also to perpetuate it. This process is therefore self-validating reduction. There are all too many examples. Animals reduced to pitiful or hostile vestiges of their former selves, whose incapacities and hostility are then taken to justify exploitation or further violence. ”.... “ To break this cycle of “reduction,” it is necessary to invoke a parallel cycle of “invitation”—indeed, quite precisely, self-validating invitation. Here the kind of practice asked of us is to venture something, to offer an invitation to, or to open a possibility toward, another being or some part of the world, and see what comes of it. We are called, in fact, to a kind of etiquette once again, but here in an experimental key: the task is to create the space within which a response can emerge or an exchange coevolve. “ [....] “ Places, buildings, communities can be more or less inviting: we need to plan for what Mary Midgley calls the “mixed community.” Considering—inviting—other animals in this sense, for example, partly means designing places and media where we can meet each other halfway. Sometimes it is as simple as designing places that they and we can safely share.”
Speaking about wrong kind of relations embedded in current capitalist mentality I (A.R>) wish to add one more important bi-quotation.
First there is quote from Anarchist FAQ:
As well as economic incentives, the creation of externalities flows from the price mechanism itself. The first key issue, as green economist E. F. Schumacher stressed, is that the market is based on “total quantification at the expense of qualitative differences; for private enterprise is not concerned with what it produces but only what it gains from production.” This means that the “judgement of economics ... is an extremely fragmentary judgement; out of the large number of aspects which in real life have to be seen and judged together before a decision can be taken, economics supplies only one — whether a thing yields a profit to those who undertake it or not.” [Small is Beautiful, p. 215 and p. 28] This leads to a simplistic decision making perspective:
“Everything becomes crystal clear after you have reduced reality to one — one only — of its thousand aspects. You know what to do — whatever produces profits; you know what to avoid — whatever reduces them or makes a loss. And there is at the same time a perfect measuring rod for the degree of success or failure. Let no-one befog the issue by asking whether a particular action is conducive to the wealth and well-being of society, whether it leads to moral, aesthetic, or cultural enrichment. Simply find out whether it pays.” [Op. Cit., p. 215]
But exactly this kind of objection was made by Savage-Rumbaugh (as quoted by Kenneth LeVasseur) against not just one researcher, but whole idea of operant conditioning!
". . . unlike the child, all of the actions carried out by Ake, Rocky, and the others in the test paradigm achieve a single goal--the receipt of a fish to eat (Herman et al. 1984; Herman 1987,, 1988; Schusterman & Krieger 1984, 1988). In the routines of daily life, a child learns to carry out different actions for different ends and becomes a functional partner in the interactions. The correspondence between the communication and its result, that is natural for the child, is not present in the dolphin and sea lion studies. . . .
" . . . The dolphin, however, has little reason to learn in this way, since it
a) cannot make the signs the experimenter makes and
b) probably does not particularly want to 'take the frisbee to the hoop' in any case.
It is more interested in reinstating the 'effect' of receiving a fish than in the actions that were the result of the symbols 'take the frisbee to the hoop.'
". . . This is not to say that these animals lack intentionality and do not communicate to each other or to humans. Within the test situation, however. these capacities have no opportunity for expression. . . .
Children learn many words that permit them to affect their world in many different ways. Dolphins learn many words that affect the world all in the same way (they produce a fish). Until training paradigms are utilized that permit the animal to do more than obtain one type of reward, the subjects cannot be expected to realize their potential for symbolic communication."
So, removing totally wrong set of relations between humans and ex-captives (dolphins) also very much demand different, non-hierarchical, non-reductionist relations between humans. Especially if we consider Frfact whole thing will most likely happen in standard capitalist society, so following will be more than applicable unless human/human relations at whole project site will be vastly more supportive towards each other (in additional to being supportive to ex-captives!) in direct sense (so skewed economic power overrepresented in std. society will have less impact than usual on those humans) than it is typical for modern times!
Another quote from AFAQ:
“Thus if the president of company X has a mystical experience of oneness with nature and starts diverting profits into pollution control while the presidents of Y and Z continue with business as usual, the stockholders of company X will get a new president who is willing to focus on short-term profits like Y and Z. As Joel Bakan stresses, managers of corporations “have a legal duty to put shareholders’ interests above all others ... Corporate social responsibility is thus illegal — at least when it is genuine.” Ones which “choose social and environmental goals over profits — who try and act morally — are, in fact, immoral” as their role in both the economy and economic ideology is to “make much as much money as possible for shareholders.” [The Corporation, pp. 36–7 and p. 34] “
For combating such outcome much more direct support between humans should be maintained. (who also must be deep thinkers, be able to regulate themselves, self-critical and seek some unusual goal - so even if they not politically anarchists - they better to share some of key features of anarchism!). Relying on external monetary donations or rich visitors will easily put whole project under hammer of very system it tries to at least avoid, and at best successfully combat as example of different kinds of relations, not limited to anthropocentered relations!
Another quote from AFAQ:
“Thus if the president of company X has a mystical experience of oneness with nature and starts diverting profits into pollution control while the presidents of Y and Z continue with business as usual, the stockholders of company X will get a new president who is willing to focus on short-term profits like Y and Z. As Joel Bakan stresses, managers of corporations “have a legal duty to put shareholders’ interests above all others ... Corporate social responsibility is thus illegal — at least when it is genuine.” Ones which “choose social and environmental goals over profits — who try and act morally — are, in fact, immoral” as their role in both the economy and economic ideology is to “make much as much money as possible for shareholders.” [The Corporation, pp. 36–7 and p. 34] “
For combating such outcome much more direct support between humans should be maintained. (who also must be deep thinkers, be able to regulate themselves, self-critical and seek some unusual goal - so even if they not politically anarchists - they better to share some of key features of anarchism!). Relying on external monetary donations or rich visitors will easily put whole project under hammer of very system it tries to at least avoid, and at best successfully combat as example of different kinds of relations, not limited to anthropocentered relations!
Whole AFAQ located at http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq
But this relatively lately found by me (A.R.) anarchist view put serious doubts on realisation of Ken’s initial idea about transforming dolphinarium into such community place, where really mutually supportive mixed-species commune may live. What kind of event must happen to even ‘progressive’ dolphin owner for him or her (unfortunately female dolphin trainer, dolphin owner, etc not really softer than males!) to abandon not just dolphin exploitation, but human exploitation, environment exploitation, and so on? May be such transformation still possible with some humans, but at least Ken’s own attempt at it while filming “Beneath the Blue” movie failed - none at this captive swim-with facility was moved enough to become visible supporter of idea! (for some details you can start at https://wayofthedolphinblog.wordpress.com/dolphin-issues/ )
In personal communications with Ken we agreed this everpresent in capitalists fear of bankruptcy (“what we will do if most/all dolphins will need to go for some even more extended period of time?”) must be realistically addressed, probably by completely shifting monetary-generating activity from being _depended_ on dolphin’s real continued presence - yet now I’m not sure just allowing same mindset to ruin just slightly different part of life is acceptable. Probably some can be convincing by showing how capitalism as practicized today IS reductionism, and thus ignoring ‘capital’ of social relations, and dolphins know how to make a lot of very attractive relations with their human friends (they are masters of such relations, not depleted by all our material culture confusion! Yes, ors are depleted, because we can easily confuse social and personal relations with desire for some material items or money, and all this exaggregated by specific of our dominative nature).
Scott Taylor in his vision of ‘Dolphin Village” did remarkable error, assuming whole dolphin/human place must be multi-deca-million-dollars luxury resort, attractive and factually accessible only by rich elite. Lets not resort to such thing, especially because it was envisioned as nothing more but even more glamorized captivity! Place must be attractive by its ability to support life, starting from very basic food (for both or more than two species ...with dolphin’s area much extending into sea/ocean, literally limitless) and spiraling up to all kinds of social support we value.
In personal communications with Ken we agreed this everpresent in capitalists fear of bankruptcy (“what we will do if most/all dolphins will need to go for some even more extended period of time?”) must be realistically addressed, probably by completely shifting monetary-generating activity from being _depended_ on dolphin’s real continued presence - yet now I’m not sure just allowing same mindset to ruin just slightly different part of life is acceptable. Probably some can be convincing by showing how capitalism as practicized today IS reductionism, and thus ignoring ‘capital’ of social relations, and dolphins know how to make a lot of very attractive relations with their human friends (they are masters of such relations, not depleted by all our material culture confusion! Yes, ors are depleted, because we can easily confuse social and personal relations with desire for some material items or money, and all this exaggregated by specific of our dominative nature).
Scott Taylor in his vision of ‘Dolphin Village” did remarkable error, assuming whole dolphin/human place must be multi-deca-million-dollars luxury resort, attractive and factually accessible only by rich elite. Lets not resort to such thing, especially because it was envisioned as nothing more but even more glamorized captivity! Place must be attractive by its ability to support life, starting from very basic food (for both or more than two species ...with dolphin’s area much extending into sea/ocean, literally limitless) and spiraling up to all kinds of social support we value.
Another key point from both anarchist’s tradition and philosophy - is to make direct action/practice, not just use ‘donate’ button. Why? At very least because it gives a lot more - feels of temperature and distance, sounds of the sea and rocky landscapes, better understanding of your limits and limitations and possibilities hidden in reality. I (AR) experienced this myself during failed attempt at freeing captive dolphins Delfa and Zeus in late 2015-early 2016.
But main problem in realization of any truely alternative project seems to be (after overcoming initial unability to think outside the box, and when ideas become widespread enough to become workable) exactly highly unequal and hierarchical nature of current human society - any ‘deviant’ project torpedoed not just by existing laws, but by more mainstream activists and their organizations! Our documents hopefully will help to make some ideas more advanced and coherent - but they alone can’t help with breaking this barrier between theoretical possibility and practice. May be law-related problems sometimes overestimated and overstated by proponents of mainstream views - especially if we talk about supporting ex-captives by human people who already live in area, not some specialized ‘project’ with its need to be law-obeying to the last dot in lawbook. But then if exactly moving captives to sea currently tied to some mainstream perspective about ‘providing safe and professional (!) secured (!!) place’ - we definitely need some political work! Political in sense of providing transfer for captives (this process in itself was mostly ignored by activists - even if it remain quite stressfull for cetaceans and their experience during it may hugely impact their behavior on arrival! We developed some ideas about starting human/cetacean re-relations very early simply for facultating even transport process itself in much more cetacean-friendly manner than it currently can be done by dolphinarium industry standards of (non)care, yet attempts at implementing those ideas also blocked by unsettling hierarchical power from dolphianrium industry, now also way too well represented in ‘anti-captivity’ activist’s circles), yet effectively suppressing development of new captive place! With usual caution about nature of human politics - in attempt to buy support humans often make all sort of nice promises, yet after coming to power they even literally shot down ex-comrades, and break from their promised goals! So, allowing anyone to gain even ‘moderate’ by society’s mainstream standards control over how it must be done, about who will allowed to enter and who will not, any reuse of State/corporate/institutional power must be effectively resisted. “How?” is very open question ....
Notes
[3] - http://dolphintale.com/Interspecies... - “Large scale thinking is required, and a huge commitment by the Human family to this new level of relationship. To develop the type of coastal environment ideal for the interspecies villages of the future will cost tens of millions of dollars. (The Waikaloa Hilton Hotel on Hawaii has Dolphins living in it’s artificial lagoon, and the development costs of the hotel were reported to be around $350 million dollars.....)”. Speaking about what was envisioned by Lilly - at least in the “The mind of the dolphin” he emphasized and highlighted necessarity of _voluntary_ contact. Quote from very end of book: (p. 275) “It is suggested that shallow water "parks" be established. Such parks would be in areas which the dolphins naturally seek. The underwater and abovewater facilities are to be designed so as to allow voluntary contacts between the species. Neither man nor dolphin are to be constrained in their own or in the other's medium. “ (word voluntary was highlighted in italics in original text) But I guess this fixation on hugely visual attractive luxury resorts as model disabled most of real development, even at concept level. Yes, there was small ‘interspecies village’ at Hawaii around local libre dolphins, yet its impact on situation with human/cetacean relation was nowhere big enough - it just survived in parallel with bigger captive place! :( - http://www.joanocean.com/Human-do.h...
