Critical Disability Studies and the State

Liat Ben-Moshe’s Decarcerating Disability: Deinstitutionalization and Prison Abolition, and Linda Steele’s Disability, Criminal Justice and Law: Reconsidering Court Diversion offer distinct critical perspectives on the law and by extension, the State. This essay offers some reflections on the implications for future research in Critical Disability Studies on the State and its relation to disability. Here it is argued that there is scope for a widened analysis of, firstly, what exactly the State is from the perspective of disability; secondly, the distinct role of the State in participating in the construction of disability as a form of social oppression; and finally, the tactical problem posed by the State, as both agent of violence against people with disability and a potential vehicle for structural change

Animal Utopia: Liberal, Communitarian, Libertarian Or…? [Review Essay] Wayne Gabardi. The Next Social Contract: Animals, The Anthropocene, and Biopolitics

It would be difficult to be optimistic in the face of the political challenges that confront us. Globally, we have seen stark intensifications of economic inequalities and social stratifications, coupled with the rise of new nationalist and proto-fascist political movements. The environmental challenges are daunting: we now face a future where anthropogenic climate change will inescapably and deeply impact the earth’s systems. As I write, armed conflict continues to shape human affairs, generating continued misery and displacement; and instabilities have posed the possibility of new global conflicts, including a renewed threat of nuclear war. For non-human animals globally, the picture is also grim. On one hand, we are in the midst of an unprecedented global wave of destruction impacting the animals we share the planet with: ‘our global society has started to destroy species of other organisms at an accelerating rate, initiating a mass extinction episode unparalleled for 65 million years’ (Ceballos et al. 4). On the other hand, and despite growing awareness of the moral status of animals, humans continue to expand utilisation of animals for food, textiles and experimentation. As I have previously argued, our mainstay relationship with animals continues to be characterised by outright hostility, aggression; in other words, ‘war’ (see Wadiwel, The War)

Do Fish Resist?

There have been a number of scientific studies on the question of whether fish feel pain. Some have suggested that some fish indeed do feel pain and that this has significant welfare implications (2003). Others have argued that fish do not have the brain development necessary to feel pain. In terms of number of animals killed, the slaughter of sea animals for human consumption significantly exceeds that of any land animals that we use for food, and sea animal slaughter practices frequently lack any basic welfare protections. If fish can be shown to feel pain—or more importantly, if humans can agree that fish feel pain—then this would place a significant question mark over many contemporary fishing practices. This article substitutes the question 'Do Fish Feel Pain?' with an alternative: 'Do Fish Resist?' It explores the conceptual problems of understanding fish resistance, and the politics of epistemology that surrounds and seeks to develop a conceptual framework for understanding fish resistance to human capture by exploring the development of fishing technologies - the hook, the net and contemporary aquaculture

Fish and pain: The politics of doubt

The commentaries on Key’s (2016) target article make it clear that there is a great deal of doubt about Key’s thesis that fish do not feel pain. The political question therefore is about how we should respond to doubt. If the thesis of Key and others (that fish do not feel pain) is wrong, then the negative impact for fish in terms of suffering caused by human utilisation would be extreme. In the face of this doubt, the very least we can do is to adopt basic welfare precautions to mitigate the potential impact if fish do suffer, with attention to the means used to capture, handle and slaughter them

Covid-19 and Capital: Labour Studies and Nonhuman Animals – A Roundtable Dialogue

Animal Studies Journal 2021 10(1): Covid-19 and Capital: Labour Studies and Nonhuman Animals – A Roundtable Dialogue

A Sustainable Campus: The Sydney Declaration on Interspecies Sustainability

Under the remit of an expanded definition of sustainability – one that acknowledges animal agriculture as a key carbon intensive industry, and one that includes interspecies ethics as an integral part of social justice – institutions such as Universities can and should play a role in supporting a wider agenda for sustainable food practices on campus. By drawing out clear connections between sustainability objectives on campus and the shift away from animal based products, the objective of this article is to advocate for a more consistent understanding and implementation of sustainability measures as championed by university campuses at large. We will draw out clear connections between sustainability objectives on campus and the shift away from animal based products. Overall, our arguments are contextualised within broader debates on the relationship between sustainability, social justice and interspecies ethics. We envisage that such discussion will contribute to an enriched, more robust sense of sustainability—one in which food justice refers not only to justice for human consumers and producers of food and the land used by them, but also to justice for the nonhuman animals considered as potential sources of food themselves

(Certified) Humane Violence? Animal Production, the Ambivalence of Humanizing the Inhumane, and What International Humanitarian Law Has to Do with It

The chapter draws a comparison with the self-certifying of production methods as ‘humane’ or animal-friendly in the labelling of animal products—that is, according to companies’ own self-imposed codes of conduct. It likens the idea of humanizing animal slaughter, factory farms, and other forms of production to the notion of humanizing warfare. Like international humanitarian law (IHL), animal welfare law is marked by the tension inherent in its attempt to humanize innately inhumane practices. Given these parallels, the analysis of animal welfare law might benefit from existing insights into the potential and limits of IHL. Both areas of law endorse a principle of ‘humanity’ while arguably facilitating and legitimizing the use of violence, and might thereby ultimately perpetuate the suffering of living beings. The implicit justification of violence percolating from the IHL-like animal ‘protection’ laws could only be outweighed by complementing this body of law with a ius contra bellum for animals