I agree with most of what you’ve said, and as I said in the original post, with the substance of CAS. (Though I don’t agree with the blanket dismissal of animal research, or even animal-product consumption, or, for that matter, manifesto-writing.) The root of my irritation, by contrast, I suppose comes down to the same issues I have with ‘feminism’ as such: 1) the valuable, radical arguments of the discipline tend to imply that the name of the field is itself a product of the problems it critiques (ie, feminism with naive masculine/feminine binaries, and ‘animal studies’ with naive human-nonhuman ones); and 2) the promised truly radical, ‘anti-hierarchical’ alternative to all extant forms of politics ends up resembling, with suspicious closeness, current day far-left-wing political views.

But none of this is directed against those doing truly good and interesting work in the field, of whom there are many (and many of whom reject narrow labellings like ‘feminist’ or ‘critical animal’ … uhh… ’studier.’ My irritation is caused only by the manifesto-writers and ideologically suspect hangers-on.

ICAS recognizes that the field of human-animal studies is a false binary and repressive social construction which identifies and argues that human are not animals. As noted, CAS is opposed to hierarchy; for instance, opposing animal research because this creates a hierarchy of human being over nonhuman animals. On the other hand, the Institute for Critical Zoologists supports this hierarchy through invasive manipulation of nonhuman animals: http://www.criticalzoologists.org/mission/research.html.

CAS scholars I am familiar with do engage with Derrida, Foucault, Singer, Regan, Kant, Gandhi, Schweitzer, etc. in their classes and publications. In terms of plants, the mission statement addresses “the liberation of nature as part of a transformative project that seeks to transcend these limits towards greater freedom, peace, and ecological harmony.” Their journal and conferences have addressed numerous environmental concerns.

The Frankfurt School educated many critical theorists and scholars and demanded them to be engaged activists-academics challenging politics, society, and economics. Look at scholars such as Herbert Marcuse, Angela Davis, Doug Kellner, Michael Foucault, Henry Giroux, Donna Haraway, Fredric Jameson, David Harvey, Paulo Freire, Erich Fromm, and bell hooks all challenging political systems and other forms of domination. And while many in the Frankfurt school did not provide an alternative, they challenged systems of domination (such as capitalism, sexism, racism, homophobia, and ableism) which critical theorists do today.

In my view, having the field of CAS, one of the fastest growing fields other than perhaps disability studies, is an effective way to engage in animal issues and unravel systems of domination.

I actually don’t feel very comfortable with reading “anti-capitalist” or “anti-hierarchical” in there, but I don’t know much about the reasoning there. I can’t object, personally, but only hope to learn more. ICAS is not the first critical animal studies organization; that goes to Institute for Critical Zoologists. Also, the ICAS website seems to no longer list those goals on its website.

I am new to critical theory, but let’s say you are right and ICAS is mistaken to incorporate its politics so insistently into its goals. First of all, you can’t hold anyone accountable for anything you haven’t communicated to them, so unless you have taken this discussion up with the people leading the field, it doesn’t make sense to be irritated. Secondly, note that CAS exists in a world in which 99% of society is very and materially entrenched in the exploitation of animals and is reacting to the carnivorist hypocrisy of much of mainstream animal studies. While that doesn’t excuse CAS of responsibility in any way, it puts the field into context. When your field can so easily be taken over by those committed to perpetuating or excusing the exploitation of animals, due to their overwhelming numbers in virtually all pockets of society, you want to find a way to address that.