Posts from September 2006


Review of Capers in the Churchyard
22 September 2006

A while back here at VF HQ, we received a review copy of Lee Hall’s Capers in the Churchyard: Animal Rights in the Age of Terror. I read the book immediately when I received it, but haven’t had the time to get around to writing up my review. With it being discussed over on our forums I figured I’d jump in with my thoughts.

In this book, Lee Hall1 presents a solid critique of mainstream animal movement organizations and a weaker critique of militancy in the animal rights movement. Hall sees the movement drawn in two different directions, each of which is flawed in similar ways. Hall argues that the problem underneath each school of thought—welfarism on the one hand, and militant action on the other—is that each makes arguments that are philosophically about the welfare of animals rather than about complete abolition. This is clear enough with mainstream organizations like the HSUS or PeTA, but the book also accuses ‘militants’ of the same kind of rhetoric. To prove the point, Hall draws on the SHAC campaign, noting that much of the discursive weight of their claims about animal abuse lies in an understanding of animals being treated poorly in lab conditions. In Hall’s analysis, this tactic mistakenly reifies the notion that animal welfare is what matters.

The other problem that Hall sees with campaigns such as those done by the SHAC is that they alienate, which has two main effects: First, they make it easy for any animal activist to be painted as a terrorist by association; and, second, they fail to educate in their radicalism, and in so doing, miss a key opportunity to challenge the hierarchies that are embedded in our society. A final by-product of the use of force or militancy, Hall argues, is that these tactics actually reproduce the dynamics of exploitation, dominance, and hierarchy.

I found Hall’s critique to be quite provocative, challenging, and thoughtful, but not without its problems. Before I get into my gripes, let me say that this is the kind of movement analysis that we need, in that it calls into question the entire structure of the movement, from what many would see as its most radical wing all the way over to even its most accommodationist. Having surveyed the terrain, Hall finds it all wanting, and instead proposes that we redouble our efforts towards real abolition, which the author sees as depending upon thoughtful education about how to overcome domination and hierarchy. The solution, Hall argues, is as simple as leaving behind the products of domination, and replacing the oppressive industries of exploitation with “life affirming” ones.

In principle, I like the renunciation of hierarchy that the book advocates, and I agree with Hall that it is time for us to leave behind welfarist advocacy. In a paragraph that typifies this critique, Hall writes:

By declining to bargain with industries for small changes, we avoid being placated by temporary and illusory gains. We decline to celebrate confusion. We know that business and media are willing to present us as winning if the status quo is reinforced; and we aren’t entertaining the offer. We know that exposing illegal cruelty satisfies the consensus that the use of animals can acceptably go on, managed and controlled and regulated, buttressing the image of a self-proclaimed advanced and caring populace as millions are served.

This sentiment is powerful, and its critique hits at the heart of the current structure of welfarism in the animal rights movement. On these points, the book is at its strongest, a potent tonic against the ineffective activism of the mainstream organizations which, as Gary Francione brilliantly analyzed a number of years ago in Rain Without Thunder, need such campaigns to stay alive and garner member donations.

Despite the strengths, I do think the book suffers from several weaknesses, which I’ll detail in order of importance.

The first real problem with the book is that its understanding of social movement theory is rather limited. Hall dismisses the idea that a diversity of tactics is appropriate, yet thinkers like Gramsci would urge a variety of tactics in pursuit of any movement that challenges power in a society like ours. To imagine that a movement as diverse as the animal rights/liberation movement could ever take on a single set of tactics for addressing animal exploitation is idealist to say the least. Indeed, I’m not even sure that this would be productive. Animals are exploited throughout the fabric of our social order, and different people need to be appealed to in different ways. Moreover, the power structures in our society need to be challenged on a variety of fronts, otherwise, the fight becomes too simple, too staid, and lacks dynamism.

My second critique concerns the way that Hall paints the hardcore scene. To say that Hall creates a straw man here would be too generous; indeed, the setup is one that smacks of argumentitive convenience above all, with the use of generalizations that do not become the rest of this analysis. Hall’s writing on this sways from fuddy-duddy to just plain wrong, and it seems clear that Hall has no idea about what Hall writes in the critique of hardcore (which the book mistakenly calls ‘metal’). To wit:

Some militants appear to view the animals’ cause as the latest countercultural niche. A new entrant into the militant scene can find a world entirely apart from the banalities of home life: metal bands, tattoos and body piercings, being locked together inside of Neiman Marcus to protest fur, occupying professors’ offices, seeing one’s name in the papers, hosting speakers, and being initiated into an activists’ circle by going on night surveillance trips and undercover investigations.

There are movement tourists who play the part, talk the talk, and who are looking for somewhere to belong. I think we’ve all heard the quip about people being straight edge until 21. Nevertheless, this ignores the ways in which punk and hardcore scenes can be educational for the majority of people that are involved. Music is as valid an outlet for ideas about animal exploitation as is a book, and the punk and hardcore scenes have a long history of challenging all kinds of exploitation, animal exploitation included. Many come to our movement from this avenue, and to dismiss it so easily shows that Hall does not understand what she’s talking about here. At best, Hall draws a rough caricature.(And plus, what’s wrong with tattoos and piercings, huh?)

My remaining problem with Hall’s book is a small one, but possibly significant if you think critically about class. Hall takes on a rather sloppy conception of class in the epilogue to the book, defining it loosely as “any position in an oppressive hierarchy.” This is not a helpful or rigorous definition of class, nor is it one that is significantly tied to the notion of capitalism. The book misses an opportunity here to examine how the problems of domination are reproduced in and through capital, and instead settles on this mushy conception of difference. Though I’m open to a generous reading of Hall’s intent here as one of challenging domination, the use of class in this way strikes me as a bit voluntaristic and sloppy.

In sum, this is a provocative book that I greatly enjoyed reading. Parts of it bothered me, got under my skin, and made me think critically about my positions, and other parts had me saying “hell yeah” out loud. I especially love books that make me reconsider the foundations of my beliefs about action, tactics, and approach, and I commend Hall for writing a book that swims so ardently against the tide. Even though I did not agree with some of the book, I recommend it highly for anyone who wants to think through these volatile yet deeply important issues. The one thing that unites both Hall and those that she critiques is a common desire to do the best for animals. In the spirit of that notion, you owe it to yourself to think carefully about the points that Capers in the Churchyard raises.

1 We were asked not to use pronouns in referring to Lee Hall, a request which I’ve honored here. If the writing is stilted or formal in places, it is because I was working around this request.

  Posted by Bob Torres    Permalink    Filed under: categories

Page 1 of 1 pages