Animal Advocacy and Sustainability: The Oppressive Human Implications of Animal Exploitation

In Julietta Singh’s “Unthinking mastery: dehumanism and decolonial entanglements” (2017) she explains the concept of mastery and how it has been historically used to justify the exploitation of both human and non-human lives, as well as the concept of the humanist hierarchy that places humans above animals and thus justifies their exploitation by humans. She further explained how this system that justifies the oppression of animals, is the same system which enables and justifies the various oppressions faced by humans, such as the devaluing of women under men (sexism) and the devaluing of people of colour under white people (racism). Her arguments made clear to me the implications that animal exploitation has for humans as a result of the similar systems of hierarchy that oppress both groups. They also made me interested in how they are not only similar, but how they may influence each other, as the basis of intersectionality is that all systems of oppression work together, rather than separately.

In this essay, I look at the ways in which animal exploitation is linked to human oppression. More specifically, I argue that animal agriculture (the meat and dairy industries) is entwined with issues of sustainability such as environmental degradation, racism, and sexism. When discussing meat and dairy industries, I am speaking only about large-scale, commercial factory farming, not about smaller, traditional practices and consumption of animals such as that of Indigenous peoples. I will do this by first going over the environmental impact of animal agriculture, as well as the specific implications it has for poorer people in the Global South, especially women. Then I will discuss the ways the humanist hierarchy creates sub-hierarchies among animals and the racist implications of these sub-hierarchies. Lastly, I will discuss how the humanist hierarchy results in the ignorance of the suffering of animals from a feminist lens. In order to move towards a more sustainable future in all these regards, animal advocacy must be incorporated into anti oppression movements. By allowing the exploitation of non-human animals, other systems of oppression among humans can be justified and reinforced, as the systems of hierarchy and domination that justify the exploitation of animals are linked to those among humans.

Animal agriculture poses a strong threat to the environment; it is one of the biggest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and water and air pollution (Climate Nexus). Animal agriculture makes up 83% of all agricultural land use, as well as 30% of the planet’s surface (David Suzuki Foundation). This damage to the environment inevitably impacts all humans who inhabit said environment. However, individuals who live in the Global South are more likely to feel the environmental consequences of animal agriculture, particularly in the form of hunger, loss of resources, and subsequent punishments at the hands of the Global North.

Animal agriculture uses 16% of all freshwater and one third of the world’s grain for livestock (Climate Nexus) and 82% of the world’s starving children live in countries where livestock are raised, fed food, and later sold to wealthier countries in the Global North (Conzachi 2022). The Global Hunger Index of 2022 reported that countries in Sub Saharan Africa reported the highest hunger index scores, which are determined by malnourishment, child underweight, and child mortality numbers. South Asia’s hunger index scores reported the largest numbers of starving people. Other countries included as having high hunger index scores are Yemen, Central African Republic, and Madagascar (Statista Research Department). Those in the Global South suffer from increased rates of hunger and starvation despite the fact that there is enough food in their countries to feed livestock consumed by the Global North, thus illustrating the ways that distribution of wealth, power, and resources leads to unequal distribution of environmental degradation and thereby making animal agriculture an environmental justice issue (Adamson et al., 2002), as it is consumption of livestock by the North that disproportionately impacts those in the South. As a result of the man-made hierarchy that places humans above non-human animals, and thus justifies their commodification and consumption, there results a hierarchy among humans regarding who receives food, placing those in the Global North as more deserving than those in the South. Additionally, there is an implication of an almost “sub-hierarchy” among non-human animals used for food and humans who suffer from starvation. The resources used to raise livestock could very well be used to feed those who are suffering from starvation, many of whom are in the Global South and in the countries where livestock is raised. However, due to the priority given to those in the North who consume animals, humans in the South suffer so that the non-human animals may be fed and then sold to be consumed by those in the North.

These actions and said hierarchy result in further implications for poorer women in the Global South, who are often blamed for the majority of environmental damage due to “irresponsible” birthing practices and consumption of resources. As a result, these women are often subject to increased control and surveillance in the forms of government controlled birth control and forced sterilization in hopes of preventing birthing among poorer communities and thus decreasing the amount of resources used (Ross 2016). In reality, only 20% of the world uses 80% of all resources, meaning it is the overconsumption of resources by the North that is most responsible for environmental damage. It is the behaviour of the North that impacts poorer women in the South far more than poorer women in the South impact the environment. However, it is these women, and others in the South, that suffer the most consequences of animal agriculture and the social hierarchy that both causes it and by which it is caused.

The anthropocentric hierarchy that places humans above non-human animals justifies human consumption of animals and is a cause of animal agriculture, which has devastating environmental impacts. The environmental degradation that occurs as a cause of animal agriculture impacts all humans by virtue of our living in said environment. However, it is those in the Global South, especially poorer communities and women, who are impacted the most in the form of lack of food for humans due to the feeding of livestock, and increased surveillance and control for women who are blamed for overconsumption of resources and subsequent environmental damage. In reality, it is the North who is to be blamed as they consume the most resources and thus cause the most damage to the environment and to individuals in the South. Evidently, this hierarchy that places humans at the top reinforces subsequent hierarchies among humans which place poorer individuals in the South below wealthier individuals in the North, thereby proving how the exploitation of animals is linked to and reinforces similar systems of oppression among humans. Should the hierarchy that places humans above non-human animals, and thus justifies their consumption, were to come to an end, all humans could potentially be treated equally, as the resources used for livestock could instead be used to feed humans. There would also be the potential to end the large amounts of environmental damage caused by animal agriculture, as well as subsequent consequences faced by women in the South due to misplaced blame for environmental damage. Therefore, animal advocacy must be incorporated into other anti oppression movements in order to move towards a more sustainable, equitable world.

This social hierarchy, while most often centring around the hierarchy regarding humans versus non-humans, also determines levels of value among various non-human animals and this changes across cultures. This ranking of animals as it relates to animal exploitation also has implications for hierarchies and systems of oppression among humans. In the context of animal agriculture that has already been discussed, this ranking can be seen in the different categories of animals, namely the category of “pets” versus “livestock/farm animals.” In Canada, the United States, and other places in North America, animals such as dogs and cats are classified as pets and animals such as cows and pigs are classified as livestock/farm animals (DeMello 2021). These rankings hold pets as more valuable and deserving of love than farm animals who are used for food. However, in some places in the world this is not the case and the animals we consider pets, such as dogs and cats, are used for food in the same way that we use cows and pigs for food: In India, it is considered taboo to eat cows due to beliefs that cows are sacred, and thus it is wrong to eat them, which differs from Western views and consumption of cows/beef. In places such as China, Korea, and some Pacific Island cultures, eating dogs is common, once again differing from Western ideals (DeMello 2021). Evidently, the norms regarding what animals are used for food differ around the world, meaning these hierarchies we (humans) have created among animals are subjective as they change based simply on meanings made by humans. However, these arbitrary differences in hierarchy are quite often used to justify racism and xenophobia, mainly from people in the West towards those in the East. One common example is the West’s criticism regarding the consumption of dogs in the East, often evident on online social media platforms through memes and widespread petitions to end the dog meat industry, and even within mainstream, late night television such as America’s Got Talent (Wanshel 2021).

Because some places in the world do not align with the meat norms of North America, North Americans use that as a way to frame Asian people as barbaric and less than for eating what they consider to be a pet. These criticisms and ideas are not only racist, but hypocritical as many of those who go into uproar for the dog meat industry are simultaneously ignoring and supporting the cow, pig, and chicken industries by eating meat. Because dogs have been domesticated in North America and exist as companion animals, the idea of eating them seems surreal, they are viewed as being closer to humans due their sentience and intelligence, of which we are made aware due to our living with them. However, many people in North America are unaware of the sentience and intelligence of what we view as farm/food animals; studies have shown that pigs have strong self awareness, memory, symbolic language, and emotional skills (Marino & Colvin 2016), with many researchers agreeing that pigs are smarter than dogs, and even three year old human children (The Humane Society of the United States). If this is the case, that pigs possess the same level of, if not higher, intelligence that make humans view dogs as undeserving of being consumed, then this makes the dog meat and pig meat (and subsequent meat industries in North America) the same, and thus the North American meat industries should be looked down upon in the same way that the dog meat industry is viewed. However, because of the system of hierarchy among non-human animals made by humans, this is not the case and instead many North Americans ignore the slaughter of the animals they consume while simultaneously hypocritically condemning the slaughter of dogs in other places of the world. In so doing, racist and xenophobic discrimination and hierarchies among humans come about, as these differences in meat taboos cause and are used to justify racist ideologies towards other cultures mainly in the East.

The social hierarchy that places humans above non-human animals results in human justification for animal exploitation. Consequently, there arises a sub-hierarchy that places some non-human animals above others by categorizing them as either “pets” or “farm/food animals”, with the former being placed above the latter on the hierarchical ladder. This sub-hierarchy is then used to create food norms, which differ across cultures, thereby emphasizing the arbitrariness of these food rules and hierarchies. However arbitrary and subjective, these differences are often used to create and justify racist hierarchies among humans, thus proving how animal exploitation justifies and reinforces hierarchies among humans. By incorporating animal advocacy into other anti oppression movements, the links between these various oppressors would become evident and open up possibilities for education and awareness regarding animal sentience and intelligence, the subjectivity of organizing animals into their own hierarchy, and the racist implications in doing so, thus opening up further possibilities for a more equal and sustainable future for humans and non-human animals alike.

Animal exploitation, specifically within the meat and dairy industries, is also linked to feminist issues such as the commodification of the female body, and legal and social issues of female bodily autonomy. I refer specifically to the female body, rather than just women, to try to include all individuals who are impacted by these issues due to their physical sex, but who may not label themselves as women. Animal activists claim that animal rights and veganism, specifically, is a feminist issue, often shedding light on the fact that female dairy cows are forcibly impregnated so that humans may steal their milk and their calves for their own benefit, and thus this form of sexual violence is similar to that which is discussed within feminism circles. However, the response from many feminists is that of offense, that it is insulting and degrading to claim animal exploitation as a feminist issue and to compare the forcible impregnation of female dairy cows to sexual violence faced by humans. These contrasting views raise the question of why it is seen as demeaning to make animal exploitation into a feminist issue? If we can recognize that to forcibly impregnate a human is wrong, why is it not the case for cows, or any other species who is consumed by humans? Especially with the added layer of forcible pregnancy inflicted upon one being for the benefit/profit of another? This disconnect between the two issues is arguably a result of this social hierarchy that places humans above non-human animals; due to this hierarchy, non-human animals as a whole are deemed less valuable than humans and subsequently so is any mistreatment and violence with which they are faced. Because of this system that devalues animal life, the sexualized reproductive violence faced by dairy cows is ignored and deemed less important than the sexualized reproductive violence faced by humans.

I argue that these issues are similar and stem from similar capitalist discourses that result in the commodification of the female body, both human and non-human. In Kathryn Gillespie’s, “Sexualized Violence and the Gendered Commodification of the Animal Body in Pacific Northwest US Dairy Production” (2014) she discusses the ways in which dairy cows’ bodies are made into a commodity to purchase and profit from, with emphasis being placed solely on the reproductive capabilities of the cow, with some advertisements pushing the question of “if she (the cow) can’t stay pregnant, what else will she do?” (Gillespie, 2014, pp.1329), essentially reducing her value to her ability to reproduce and provide a service for the benefit of someone else.

The human female body is commodified in various different ways; the increase in rates of cosmetic surgery illustrates the value placed on beauty and the ways in which one’s appearance becomes a product to purchase (Wilson 2023), while pornography and other forms of sex work turn sex and the female body into a product for one to purchase access to, as well as a source for companies to profit (Horley & Clarke 2016). The most similar mode of commodification to that which I have described for dairy cows would likely be the commercial surrogacy industry, which often targets poorer women for the benefit of wealthier couples wanting a child. These women typically already have children of their own and surrogacy brokers tend to prey on them and their fears of being unable to support their own children, promising them money in return for the renting of their womb. However, not only are they all too often not paid what they were promised, they are treated essentially as machine, being constantly told that they must be a “good worker” in their role as a surrogate, told that they are only a “vessel” to create a baby that they have no connection to, with said baby being taken away from them as soon as it is born; all for the benefit of both the surrogacy company and the (rich) parents to whom the baby is intended (Pande 2010). Similarly to the situation of the dairy cow, the surrogate is reduced to her ability to reproduce as a service to someone else. In both situations, the body and its reproductive abilities are viewed only as a vessel for someone else to purchase and benefit from. If commercial surrogacy among humans is viewed as a feminist issue, why is this not the same for the cow and other non-human animals from which we (humans) use and profit from? Evidently, the hierarchy that places humans above animals makes invisible the harms faced by animals, as well as their similarities to that faced by humans - even within feminist circles that can recognize and challenge the hierarchy’s valuing of men above women. While this example may not appear as directly related to the oppression of humans as those previously discussed, the role that this hierarchy has on all humans is evident in the ignorance of animal exploitation and the offence taken in the suggestion of criticizing the sexualized violence and commodification of the animal body. By incorporating animal advocacy into other anti oppression movements, the hierarchy that places certain lives above others could be not only further recognized, but deconstructed by activists in an attempt to live more equally between humans and non-human animals.

The exploitation of animals through animal agriculture justifies and reinforces systems of oppression among humans, as the systems of hierarchy and domination that justify the exploitation of animals are inherently linked to those among humans. Animal agriculture results in environmental degradation and thus makes it an issue of environmental justice which has negative implications for humans. Poorer people in the Global South suffer from hunger and starvation due to the need to feed animals raised for consumption in the North, while poorer women, specifically, are inaccurately blamed for environmental damage and overconsumption of resources and are subsequently subject to invasive birth control methods. The classifications of “pets” versus “food animals” is another example of hierarchy that places certain animals above others and creates food norms that vary across cultures. This then results in, and is used to justify, racist attitudes between cultures whose food norms differ. This is mainly the case in normalized racist attitudes from those in North America towards those in places in Asia regarding the consumption of dog meat, despite North America’s consumption of animals such as cows, pigs, and chickens. Lastly, the hierarchy which places humans above animals results in the ignorance of the suffering and exploitation of animals, despite similarities between suffering faced by humans. The commodification of the female body is evident both in human and animal practices, with humans being subject to the commercial surrogacy industry and animals subject to the dairy industry; in both cases, the body is reduced down to its capability to reproduce and made into a commodity for someone else to purchase and/or profit from. Animal advocacy should be incorporated into other anti oppression movements in order to full deconstruct the systems of hierarchy and domination that oppress all beings and to move towards a more sustainable and equitable future for humans and non-humans alike.