Ein Nichtmensch, ein Objekt, ein Mehrzweck?

Palang LY

Tiere als Nummern

Dieser Text als PDF (der Link öffnet sich in einem neuen Fenster)

Das kontroverse israelische Projekt http://269life.com emphatisiert und subjektifiziert das Tier, das stellvertretend für das Tieropfer einer karnistisch-speziesistisch funktionierenden Gesellschaft steht. Während solch ein Kunst- / Designprojekt wie das „Pig 05049“ der Niederländerin Christien Meindertsma, das in ihrer Arbeit tokenisierte nichtmenschliche Tier entindividualisiert und objektifiziert.

Ein Nichtmensch, ein Objekt, ein Mehrzweck?

Der Guardian veröffentliche am 27. März 2010 ein Essay des amerikanischen Autoren und Journalisten Bill Buford [1] über eine Arbeit der niederländischen Designerin Christien Meindertsma, in der sie Fotografien von Nebenprodukten aus der Fleischindustrie, als all das, was aus einem Schwein so gemacht wird, zentriert auf ein Tier: „Pig 05049“, als Rohstoffquelle, darstellte.

Aus Tierrechtssicht halte ich die Arbeit von Meindertsma für bedenklich, aus Gründen, die ich weiter unten anreißen will. Der Artikel aus dem Guardian jedoch, sowie auch ein Artikel aus dem Stern über eine Ausstellung Meindertsmas im Jahr 2008 zum „Pig 05049“ [2], machen aber bereits klar, warum die Arbeit der Designerin eine zweischneidige Angelegenheit ist, wenn sie problemlos in der Weise, wie in diesen beiden Artikeln, rezipiert werden kann, als eine willkommen geheißene Ermutierung zur Objektifizierung von nichtmenschlichen Tieren im agraindustriellen Komplex.

Der Tierrechtler und Vorstand des europäischen Zweigs des Animals and Society Institute (http://www.animalsandsociety.org/) Kim Stallwood, hält zum Artikel Bufords aus dem Guardian fest:

Das kleine Schweinchen beim Guardian

Ein interssanter Artikel im samstags erscheinenden farbigen Wochendmagazin des Guardians. Er bestand aus einem Fotoessay als Auszug aus dem Buch Pig 05049 von Christien Meindertsma und einem Essay des Autoren Bill Buford. Interessant aus zweierlei Hinsicht.

Zuerst: Das Fotoessay dokumentiert 185 (naja, einige) Produkte, die aus einem geschlachteten Schwein hergestellt werden, einschließlich Apfelsaft (Gelatine), Puzzleteilen (Knochenleim) und Sandpapier (nochmals Knochenleim). Was immerhin beweist welche Herausforderung es darstellt, vegan zu leben. Einige würden behaupten es ist eine sinnlose Übung. Eine Unmöglichkeit. Ich würde sagen, dass der Weg zum Veganismus wichtiger ist, als die Ankunft am seinem Ziel.

Der zweite interessage Punkt ist dieser: warum müssen Menschen, die darüber schreiben, dass sie bei der Schlachtung eines Tiere teilgenommen haben, den Akt immer romantisieren? Und das Ganze mit sentimentalem Quatsch aufladen, um den Anschein der Profundität zu erwecken? Buford schreibt zum Beispiel: „Das Blut sammelt sich in einem Eimer. Ich rührte es damit es nicht koaguliert. Man gab mir eine Kelle und sagte ich solle mal probieren. Ich war vom Geschmack überracht, der vital, energisierend und glücklich war.“ Was genau ist glücklich am Probieren des Blutes eines Schweins, das man gerade getötet hat? Und dann folgt diese pseudo-moralisierende und nichtssagende Entschuldigung für die Missetat. [3]

„Der Aufwand benötigte vier Mann. Das Schwein wusste was geschah. Sie war stark. Sie kämpfte. Da gab es kein Schweinequieksen. Es war ein weit offener Schrei. Sie schrie laut und hörte nicht auf, bis nachdem für einige Sekunden, und nicht mehr als einige Sekunden, in ihr Herz gestochen war. Der Schrei ging bis in die höheren Klangregister; ein hochstimmiges, bellendes Klagen, das mein Gehirn nicht als normal herausrastern oder empfinden konnte. Dann, gerade als ich das Seil am Bein des Tieres festmachte, schaute sie mich an, ganz genau, und sah mir in die Augen. Warum mir? Vermittelte mein Gesicht unter den andern Gesichtern dieser abghärteten Traditionalisten etwa Unbehagen? Der Halt funktionierte wie eine Klampe. Ich wollte mich abwenden. Ich tat es nicht.“ [4]

— — —

Wie konnten die Fotografien aus der Designarbeit von Meindertsma so problemlos in diesem Zusammenhang ihren Platz finden? Ist eine Auflistung und Darstellung von Tierkörperteilen und der Stoffe, die aus ihnen gewommen werden bereits eine Stellungnahme in der einen oder anderen Weise?

Meindertsma sieht in ihrer Arbeit „grundsätzlich den Produktkatalog [eines] Schweins“. Das „schönste“ findet sie, in einer TED Rede unter dem Titel: „Wie Teile vom Schwein die Welt zum Drehen bringen“ (vom Juli 2010), ist die Verwendung der Herzklappe des Tieres, die eine Operation am menschlichen Herzen unter nur minimalstem Eingriff ermöglicht. Abschließend sagt sie, dass sie am meisten an Rohmaterialien insgesamt intersssiert sei, und ein bisschen auch an Schweinen. [5]

Die Ästhetik der Objektifizierung

Randy Malamud, Fellow am Institut für Tierthik der Uni Oxford, formuliert ein wichtiges Argument im Kontext mit einem Werkzyklus der türkischen Künstlerin Pinar Yolacan (Titel: „Perihables“), in der Hühnerkörper als künstlerisches Ausdrucksmittel und Accessoire verwendet werden:

„Ich frage mich, wenn ich durch Yolacans Linse auf eine Frau und ein Huhn blicke, eine Frau in einem Huhn: Wo ist das Huhn? Ja, das Tier ist da, aber da gibt es kein „da“. Das einzige huhnhhafte in diesen Bildern ist ein Negativum: die Abwesenheit eines Huhns, die Verhöhnung eines Huhns, die Zerstörung eines Huhns, die perverse menschliche Transformation eines Huhns.

Ich möchte damit nicht sagen, dass es die Last jedes Kunstwerks sein müsse, das huhnhafte des Huhns zu hinterfragen, aber ich bin ökologisch empört über das durchdringliche Versagen menschlicher Kultur […] dabei, die Intergrität, das Bewusstsein, die echte Gegenwart anderer Tiere in unserer Welt ernsthaft anzuerkennen.“ [6]

Wie weit darf eine ästhetisierende Objektifizierung gehen, insbesodere auch dann, wenn sie unter anderem der Veranschaulichung dient, wie im Fall des Buches Pig 05049 von Christien Meindertsma und bei anderen Designern, Künstlern und deren Arbeiten, im Allgemeinen.

Was Meindertsma anbetrifft: Als Veganer kennen wir Alle, Listen tierlicher Inhaltstoffe und ihrer Derivate. Eine partielle Liste im schöngemachten Format ist eigentlich nicht zweckdienlich, auch wenn sich über Ästhetik streiten lässt.

Das Buch Pig 05049 wird aber für 44 Euro bei enem veganen Onlinehandel feilgetobten. Aufmerksam wurde ich, nachdem ich sah, dass die VGD es auf ihrer FB-Seite bewarb und keine Veganer_In dort Anstoß am Ganzen nahm. [7]

[1] Bill Buford: From one pig: 185 products, The Guardian, Saturday 27 March 2010 http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/mar/27/from-one-pig-185-products. Der Text wurde inzwischen wegen Ablauf der Nutzungsrechte von der Webseite des Guardian entfernt.

[2] Albert Eikenaar: Eine tierisch versaute Idee, Der Stern 23. Juli 2008, http://www.stern.de/kultur/kunst/ausstellung-eine-tierisch-versaute-idee-632030.html

[3] Kim Stallwood: Little Piggy at The Guardian, http://www.kimstallwood.com/2010/03/29/the-little-piggy-at-the-guardian/. Übersetzung der Blogeintrags (ohne dem Zitat aus dem Guardian) Palang Y. Arani-May, mit der freundlichen Genehmigung von Kim Stallwood. Siehe hierzu auch: This little piggy… Christien Meindertsma photographs the 185 products that came from one pig, The Guardian, Saturday 27 March 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/gallery/2010/mar/27/185-products-one-pig-gallery

[4] Bill Buford: From one pig: 185 products, a.a.O. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/mar/27/from-one-pig-185-products

[5] TED, Christien Meindertsma: Wie Teile vom Schwein die Welt zum Drehen bringen http://www.ted.com/talks/christien_meindertsma_on_pig_05049.html

[6] Randy Malamud: Vengeful Tiger, Glowing Rabbit, in: The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 23, 2012, http://chronicle.com/article/Vengeful-Tiger-Glowing-Rabbit/132951/?cid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en

[7] Vegane Gesellschaft Deutschland, der betreffende Eintrag auf ihrer Facebookpage https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=589879337720155&set=a.159698390738254.28272.154920631216030&type=1&theater

Alle Zugriffe vom 17. September 2013.

Eventuelle typografische Korrekturen werden noch vorgenommen.

 

Common sense as a basis for morality in Animal Rights

Use your sense of justice, when you judge nonhuman animals, use your common sense, when you judge animals.

When natural scientist make findings about how an animal brain works, how animal psychology works, cognition, consciousness, it means they will do 1. invasive research at some point, and 2. they will be using parameters that are strictly homoncentric, meaning the frame of reference they apply moves only within a “human” framework of “objectivity”.

A real Animal Rights revolution would require people to step back from human parameters. A real Animal Rights revolution would mean we as humans are able to face nonhuman animals on the level where we allow them to be different but still respect their untouchable integrity in this natural world that we all live in and are born into.

When we want to give nonhuman animals our definitions, we should as Animal Rights people make sure we don’t impose a worldview onto them and their concerns, that is not theirs (and thus not in THEIR interest). If we can’t accept that animals have their own views of the world, then we deny them real and autonomous subjectivity, and then we deny them personhood in a sense that we should respect.

We don’t need scientific proof and scientific arguments, what we need is to learn to accept common sense as a basis for morality and moral judgment in Animal Rights issues as much as we accept our basic common sense to be enough when we talk about each other or internal human concerns.

 

Can you think without your professor?

Can you think without your professor?

The academic discussion about animal concerns and where they meet human interests, is so detached from the reality of Animal Rights, that the discourse of these kind of animal ethicists seems in the core substance no more but a blast of sophist lapses branching out on a subject matter here only for secondary purposes but not because of Animal Rights themselves. What I think of are the heady discussions lead academically on the subjects of speciesism and anthropocentrism. Things may sound good, yet little way is given to nonhuman Animal Rights terms which would leave space for a nonhuman animal autonomy protecting against the human definition of “self” and “other”.

If we had a similar phenomenon in the academic discussion in regards to Human Rights, we would find ourselves in a futuristic soulless science fiction setting, where humans are no more but calculable sources to serve the interest of a hole.

The terms needed for and relevant to Animal Rights become politically practically useless when taken only to their abstract side and not to the side where a term is instilled with the aspects relating to the practical side of life – life’s daily political questions, that are concerned with environmental questions and the questions relating to Animal Rights concerns.

The worst form of an abstraction would be to go back to point zero and ask: what are Animal Rights again and which animals should have what exact rights. From an Animal Rights standpoint we take Animal Rights as a given ethical imperative and prerequisite. Similar to the understanding of RIGHT in Human Rights, my right is not dependent on any holy issue or on any group’s decision to grant me rights or even on the evolutionary side of being a humanoid. The sheer fact of existence grants the right that will take its own shape in the individual, and of course rights do conflict, and still we should try to live peacefully if we want to or if we can.

Political Animal Rights

So far we haven’t gained as much and enough political momentum as is needed in the inner national and supra-national political settings that constitute themselves with the political party systems, umbrella orgs, lobbyism driven by economical factors, NGOs, philanthropists and yes even grassroots work that we do in our communities directly or over the internet.

To rely on the possibility that academic discussion would take us any further with the needed political momentum for the Animal Rights movement, and how general society perceives the question of Animal Rights and how AR can go together with Human Rights, will be a long and disappointing wait.

Academia coins terms, but these terms become shallow after they go through the entire digestive system of the typical academic brain.

Which terms would we need, however?

We need to fill the space of the Animal Rights discussion basically with the same soul, with the same concern, idea, words, deeds …  such as we apply to our own concerns. Theories have their good, but the practice of life that in the end of the day makes up our political side of life, needs the individual strength of thought and deed.

We are able to talk about our own concerns, and we are also able to talk about the concerns of our fellow animal friends.

Never rebut an enlightened anthropos – how dare you!

Why it is amazing how Animal Rights sets ITSELF on the right fundament. No question that it does exactly that, Animal Rights is a story, dynamic in itself.

However some birthhelpers who are perhaps a couple of eons too late are fighting for their new inventions of the wheel notwithstanding. Ok, what I’m talking about is the question of the futile fight of humans against their own perpetually continued ANTHROPOCENTRISM.

A lot of focus is currently set by the AR community on just that impotant question, which is good and a thing to do overdue because it helps you see reality clearer. Reality about the political implications of Animal Rights for Human Rights and Earth Rights mostly, I believe.

But what exactly is anthropocentrism?

Also … Why is a term chosen that strictly seems to omit the animal nature connection as the KEY point and only focuses on the human towards animal relation in a critical way though. What about that, what completely stands out of the reach of us the anthropos??? Ok, so we see the question at stake here is the perspective, we want to avoid looking at the world from a strictly homocentric viewpoint. But how far do we have to go with that.

I was recently criticised for criticising an AR advocate who is against anthropocentrism and who claims that Animal Rights find a reasonable argument in the similarities between beings – humans and nonhuman animals that is. This is an old string of argumentation when animal acvocacy issues are being discussed. But: do we want to land at comparative studies where we check one brain against the other to find out how much rights you should be entitled to be granted? Well, the amount of speciesism in the enlightened field of AR advocates is just plain tiresome. I just stop this rant at this point and ask you to continue it on your own behalf if you will.

universities – ‘institutionalized’ thinking

Universities – ‘institutionalized’ thinking


Why criticize universities, they are the only real location where you can develop your free thinking together with others on an intelligent and sensible plane … ???

The reality of universities is more than an ambiguous one. Hanging between reasonable discourse and hierarchical oppression. Language, logics, proof, deduction, induction, theories, argumentation, discussions cloak so many truths unspoken of.

Without the noble and legitimate dress

a naked truth glimpses through, that seeks to escape another type of truth. One that you can only find in the nightlight, within the space inbetween being and notbeing.

Where do you draw the line, when asking others to act up – ethically?!

Where do you draw the line, when asking others to act up – ethically?!

chatty <3

I often wonder myself about what i can ask of others and what i can ask of myself, as when it comes to: what’s ethically ok, what can we do, and what is asked too much for most people (and even understandably asked too much?).

I don’t want to imply in any way with what I am saying here, that the “do whatever you want to” approach would be a recommendable path to seek in our daily practiced ethics.

What I mainly find worth highlighting in the context is this:

How about letting others down who really need my help and I could help them? Ok many of us would think I am talking about things relating to friends and family. but that’s not what I mean. What I mean is – extend your circle: helping “strangers”.

It shouldn’t be provocative to ask, my question is: is having ones “own” kids a form of letting “others” down by denying the “others” the support I could give them if I instead would chose to feel responsible just as much for them as I would for my own kids?

The other day I heard a fellow vegan talk about vegans who don’t care if exploitative “cheap” labor or any oppressive means were involved in the production process of vegan produce bought, that a vegan person’s care should ideally reach out to the questions of human rights inasmuch. This of course is an undeniably important critical point to bring up. Also this vegan person highlighted the need of a stronger awareness in the fields of veganism and environmentalism and how these two go together, and finally she briefly discussed the importance of making your kids aware of speciesism.

Thinking about vegan parenting made me think of the dilemma everybody of us faces when confronted with the decision: my life as how i would (possibly) want it for myself (having kids) or what about the kids that are born but who really don’t have much of a chance in the world for how we all are setting this world up anew every day.

I’ve taken the decision now. I don’t feel extravagant for having decided to put all my support into helping other’s kids,  nonhuman and human alike, primarily.

 

 

Does life have to be tragic?

Does life have to be tragic?

Certainly people create situations for each other as human beings, but far more than that even for other, nonhuman animal beings and the natural world and the world as a whole, situations which can’t even be hardly fathomed anymore by a word such as “tragic”, situations which leave the one who experiences them horrified and terrified, sad to the highest extent.

“Tragic” is something personal, something that can’t be really located in the broad and politically relevant context, when it refers to the experience of an individual.

No matter what though, we all do suffer from tragic fates, caused by the impacts humans create.

How do we handle our personal tragic experiences, and not let ourselves be emotionally drowned by the bad experiences and thus by others causing such feelings in us?

I think it’s important that we connect that what happens to us personally (I mean on the very private and personal scale) to that what happens in the world and with the world overall. Our personal tragedy is caused by humans who ignore that their lifestyles in all aspects (the ideas the propagate, their behavior, the practical impacts of their doings and their “havings”) affect the actual life of single individuals on really all possible scales.

Humans in the western world on average seek to rationalize their lifestyle by terms such as what is “in” and what “I should have” / own / possess, what is “normal”, what should be everybody’s standard, what is it that “I like”, that “I want”, that I “need”.

The question about the broad “you” is not interesting and even a no no. One simply works against it. The “you” is something like an opposing principle.

We need this “you” to live though! But we should be aware not to reduce it to be a fake “you”, which would consist just of clones of ourselves. It’s a matter of perspective. There is a difference between a collective egotism and an individualist “concernism” or altruism.

Tragedy hinders us from connecting to the other, we become locked within the perspective of the “I” involuntarily. But as we can’t share the feelings of an egotist who causes us to feel tragic in the first place, we end up suffering from the separation we feel between a locked “I” and an out-locked “you”.

Let’s break out of the locked “I” condition when we feel our tragedy, and let’s always see that we are connected with the many “you’s”.

 


Feminism and Animal Rights, the one way or the other …

Feminism and Animal Rights, the one way or the other …

“Meat” is not porn and it’s not sexist – “meat” is flesh, and it’s the result of a human/humans killing a nonhuman animal/animals. We should not stick our own sociological issues to such a major own concern such as Animal Rights in an analogy that sets itself so close to the subject of comparison, that the story gets one-sided and a new and important perspective gets neglected.

All Animal Rights issues need an own valid terminology and frame of reference, otherwise we blur the lines … .

The analogy of sexism and speciesism

Two main points why Animal Rights issues can’t be tied to a “purely” feminist viewpoint ( – if feminism is used as excusing women from the responsibilities in society ethically towards their nonhuman environment)

It’s wrong to presuppose that speciesism is something that is more prevalent in men compared to women.

Also, male nonhuman animals are inasmuch sexually abused in the farm industry (their reproductive system) such as female nonhuman animals are.

Both points should be expanded upon in detail of course. (I do hope I can do that to a later date.)

Close analogies … also of genocides and speciecides

These types of close analogies in the field of -isms and abuse work in a valid way when we look at the psychology of the “perpetrator” who seeks to create a victim: the aspect of exerted violence share many similarities, whereas however on the side of the victimized we have to see the contexts: political, enviro-political, historical, sociological, … a group or an individual gets picked as a victim for reasons, and those exact reasons need to be analyzed under own terms, and not be conflated.

Food ethics

veganism is veganism is veganism, perhaps

You get either those one who prioritize their self-concern by talking endlessly about health and yummy food  – instead of giving one basic useful info about how you can be creative eating and cooking with a staple diet consisting of fruit veggies and herbs and spices and legumes and grains.
Or, you get those ones who prioritize their self-concern by talking endlessly about why human rights really matter more that animal rights, and why we can’t expect people to change their “food choices” who live in hard contexts – instead of talking about where vegetarianism really came from: namely from cultures and peoples all over the world and history, who chose ethical and resposible diets.
Both types are mostly interested in how they can make their careers with veganism and get their money. In reality they see veganism as some political (hopefully) social fashion. Which it is though.

To sum it up: the plant based diet and the animal rights driven ethics of people create two major strands of opportunists currently, who put their homocenstist outlook for us as a nonplus ultra of veganism.

I don’t want to try to trash some people’s positive intents, I just think that an eagerness for one’s own “survival” grounded on using a morally and ethically weighty subject, will inevitably cause conflicts between the requirements of the subject dealt with, and the needs of steps that I ought to take in order to “reach something” (money, fame, and such) in the types of societies we live in today.