Hi folks -- back again:
Ben writes (with an arrow before it):
>The big question thus is what are those rights that humans already have? If
>in another 100 years people come up with some sort of right that they think
>they deserve that we would consider irrational, wierd, or wrong, such as the
>right to go anywhere naked, does that right already exist now and we don't
>know it? Surely the majority decide what rights are and there is no such
>thing as an objective concept of rights. They are relative to the time and
>context.
To which I reply (in brackets):
[ "What are those rights humans already have?" A fair question. I would
answer that they aren't some set of particulars, but that they are, or even
'it is,' the right of the individual to make a demand upon the group. I take
this from John Locke, and I know that it will not satisfy many people. For
instance, if rights hinge on the demand of individuals (alone or in groups),
then the "right to life" makes little or no sense, since a fetus can demand
nothing, and animals would be in the same boat. Given the constraints of
space here, I can only say that this definition of rights by no means rules
out advocacy.
This notion of "demand" also seems to be the only thing that can avoid the
corrupting and ultimately oppressive notion of the "infallability/tyranny of
the majority" that it would seem MUST follow from the formulation of rights
that you offer. "We" shouldn't get tricked out by the "we" who think some
practices "irrational, wierd, or wrong...."]
>I was trying to show that the patriarchal concept of rights is
>something that the feminist movement should not accept, and should not use
>that concept in order to achieve its goals. It may well be that a majority
>of feminists reject this patriarchal concept, and in that case my criticism
>is not pointed at them.
[I know I haven't seen this worked out or well-defined by you, but I suspect
that you may be confusing "heirarchy" with "patriarchy." To speak of
"ideology" (and I assume by this you refer to some schema by which each of us
makes sense of our world/s), my own holds that the inherent evil is found in
a traditional heirarchy that corrupts those in authoritative positions first,
and through a "trickle-down" effect dirties everyone else involved in the
practice. Historically, those authoritative positions have been held by
males, but I think you need only be stopped by one female police officer, or
step on the toes of one female dean, to see that authoritarianism and abuse
of power are not limited to just half the population. In other words, for me
"-archy" is the problem, whether "patri-" or "matri-." Hence, my response
below, phrased as carefully as I could make it given the context here.]
>>....[I]n my opinion there is a contradiction in ideologies. Since,
>>ideologically, the >animal rights movement is a part of the patriarchal
>>system of relationships it cannot >fit ideologically with feminism.
>[Then let's lose this desire for, if not fetish of, ideology and try some
>more encompassing ideas (yeah, yeah...maybe that would be just another
>ideology, but...).
Ben continues:
>The concept of an orderly, rational ideology is a very Western concept and
>maybe it is about to time to put it aside. Religion is a form of ideology
>but it includes the spiritual side of human culture which Western ideologies
>lack. An ecofeminist ideology should widen the concept and include this
>spirituality which is sorely lacking in Western culture, which does its
>utmost to suppress the emotional, feeling, and spiritual sides of humanity.
[Well, I wouldn't particularly agree with your characterization of Western
spirituality. Even if I did, I think I'd have some trouble saying that the
way to repair a lack of concern for the physical well-being of our planet and
the beings on it is to have YET ANOTHER "spiritual" revelation ('cause that's
all the ever are, you know -- revelatory assertions, not "cases" or
arguments) telling us all YET AGAIN that "spirit counts," and necessarily
implying that "flesh doesn't." Isn't that Platonic stuff part of what got us
into this mess to begin with? Does anybody remember James Watt?]
>>>A right is something relative and is only a function of the amount of
power
>>>that a particular group has.
>[And here we have the heart of our disagreement. If what you say here is
>true, then if someone or some group is strong enough, physically or
>economically, to prevent my free expression or use of my rights (let's use
>"speech" as an example), then in that moment I actually LOSE THAT RIGHT.]
>Precisely. It's a sad fact that the majority of the world's population lives
>under non-democratic and brutal regimes. If a rice farmer in the middle of
>China has never heard of the concept that they could have a vote and choose
>the government, do they still have the right to vote? On the other hand, the
>people of Hong Kong understand that under British rule they could vote and
>know that when China takes over they will lose that right. In Hong Kong
>rights exist because the people have been exposed to them, but in the middle
>of China rights do not exist. For most people in this world rights are what
>the government is nice enough to give them.
[This is logically fallacious. To assume that because things are one way that
they MUST BE THAT WAY is neither sound inference nor good tactics. Needless
to say, it "stinks on ice" as a strategy. OK, people in many places
(including the US, all too often) are denied their rights. OK, animals
everywhere are denied their rights. (And if anyone hasn't figured this out, I
don't believe in animal rights as something held by animals. See my comment
on advocacy above, though, before sharpening those steely knives. We're on
the same side, honest.)
That this denial of rights happens in no way excuses or justifies the
denial of those rights as the basic "demand by the individual on the group"
notion mentioned above. How are we to fight without this basic notion?
Remember, this is finally not an abstract exercise in theory formation or
grant-writing -- theory should shape practice, as practice must in turn
sharpen and fill out our theories.]
So...anybody else want to jump in here? Some other voices would be nice. Not
to mention helpful.
Thanks again,
Harry Ferguson
