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.

cheers
-MZ

oh wait, no i’m not. it’s totally fine, and just reminds me that i still haven’t read this new revision… sorry for the delay…

and i think it’s a great idea to “crowdsource” essays, let me know if you get any interesting feedback. you might wanna put up an abstract so people aimlessly searching for criticism on the wire will find it…

ps http://stereogum.com/archives/video/steve-earle-gets-way-down-in-the-hole-on-leno_008577.html

i actually mentioned the study to which you refer in the post above.
however, the fact that smokers die early does not justify an elimination of tobacco taxes. that’s just your desire to avoid paying taxes speaking. if I was a smoker, I’d probably feel the same way. but since I’m not, I can take a more disinterested view of things. let me explain why I support tobacco taxes, even though there is a good chance you folks dying early makes up for the extra expense of attempting to keep you alive.

first off, in a country with socialized medicine, all health care costs are ultimately borne by the state. and so Canada has a much stronger justification for its tobacco taxes than the US. even if you guys die early, the illnesses from which you die beget some pretty long hospital stays. if we know the direct cause of these hospital stays is tobacco, I don’t see why we shouldn’t try to recoup some of the cost at the point of sale.

second, is the same reason for any vice tax. if we as a majority agree that something is an awful idea, but that we don’t have the right to make it illegal, the natural solution is a punitive tax. this not only balances out the net harm to an individual with a gain for society (in itself justification enough), but it acts as a deterrent for individuals considering taking up the vice. i bitch and moan, for instance, about the taxes on alcohol, but that doesn’t mean that they’re unjustified. and there’s plenty of ways around it: buy at the duty free, buy on the reserve, whatever! the tax itself is still a good idea, unless one supposes that it’s a bad thing that smokers are somewhat discouraged from smoking or drinkers from drinking.

but, in the spirit of getting facts straight, I’m looking at your post and seeing that you thought I was arguing for an ‘increase’ on cigarette taxes. nothing of the sort – even if such an increase was justified, it’s offset by the coincident increase in smuggling and black market cigarette sales. all I was saying was that tobacco taxes are justified for the same reasons as any other punitive tax: to discourage and eke out a social gain from a behaviour with negative consequences, without unduly intruding in personal freedoms.

you raise a somewhat interesting point though: “thirdly (should you still feel smokers deserve the tax) a cull on all individual unable to take care of themselves.” This is of course the exact type of intrusion into personal freedoms that I loathe, and to which I see punitive taxation as an alternative. But it sure as hell shouldn’t be something restricted to tobacco. Probably the only thing that merits a more punitive rate of taxation than cigarettes is saturated fat. There should be a vice tax on foodstuffs based on their saturated fat content, precisely akin to the taxes we apply to cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling. Not only would this discourage obesity, especially amongst the most vulnerable populations (the poor, the lazy) but it would recoup health care costs for a condition that is vastly more expensive to treat than lung cancer – which, as Fred and I have both observed, tends to kill its victims before they start costing the State too much.

All the best

Fred

P.S. Please get your facts straight

P.P.S. In light of your sanctimonious monologue on the starving millions, I sincerely hope you are devoting your life to resolving the issue. Otherwise you are just like every other two bit hippy – happy to bark but never to bite. If you aren’t solving the problem, you are a part of it.