{"id":201,"date":"2024-07-22T14:23:25","date_gmt":"2024-07-22T14:23:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onlyonesolution.org\/blog\/?p=201"},"modified":"2026-02-03T14:32:13","modified_gmt":"2026-02-03T14:32:13","slug":"the-problem-of-inherent-dominionism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onlyonesolution.org\/blog\/2024\/07\/22\/the-problem-of-inherent-dominionism\/","title":{"rendered":"The Problem of Inherent Dominionism"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In his article The Problem of Speaking for Animals<\/em> Jason Wyckoff argues that animal advocates face a special case of “the problem of speaking for others”, mainly because when it comes to nonhuman animals “nearly all humans occupy a position of privilege and so nearly all speakers and their audiences will be situated in \u201cdiscursively dangerous\u201d positions<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

In the spirit of postcolonial theoretical work, mainly using Edward Said\u2019s Orientalism as a model, Wyckoff refers to human knowledge system \u2013 according to which nonhuman animals are regarded as resources and objects of study \u2013 as dominionism. In his words: “The norms and conventions of our speech and actions, the structured and unstructured social institutions that emerge from (and are constituted by) these norms and conventions, and the knowledge claims that are legitimated (or even more strongly, made true) by this entire context constitute a system of knowledge about animals that I am calling dominionism<\/em>“.
\nTherefore, Wyckoff argues that when speaking about, and even for nonhumans, humans are largely confined to a conceptual framework that is dominionist, anthropocentric and speciesist.
\nAgain in his words: “Orientalism and dominionism are both knowledge systems in which the conceptual framework available for the articulation of knowledge claims\u2014including claims that certain groups are systematically wronged\u2014undercuts the possibility of political representation, since in both cases the framework offers only conceptual resources that reflect and reinforce relations of domination and subordination<\/em>.”
\nSpeaking in a more practical sense the problem is that, naturally, human social institutions, as well as humans\u2019 views and actions on the individual level, are constructed from the perspective of human beings, and so, predictably serve humans\u2019 interests. Therefore he argues that “within such an institutional structure, there is simply no room for the perspective of animals<\/em>“.<\/p>\n

Being aware that it is, in his words, “difficult if not impossible to see how justice in human-animal relations could be achieved without human advocacy on behalf of animals<\/em>“, Wyckoff suggests that animal advocacy should challenge the legitimacy of the Dominionism discourse by adopting a new framework and a new lexicon because: “words do things in the world; they, and our utterances of them, have an ideological dimension. One way in which to engage in ideology critique is to make explicit one\u2019s refusal of the standard categories. Two sentences, one containing the word flesh and the other containing the word meat instead, may, under strict interpretations, say more or less the same thing, but utterances of them will have different impacts nonetheless. A critical discourse should involve a conscious effort to disrupt the dominant social schemas that comprise the resource paradigm<\/em>“.
\nWyckoff suggests that expressions such as “meat is not food” or “animals are not livestock” \u2013 “make vivid both the contingency and the normativity of the relevant classifications<\/em>“, meaning, he thinks that it may cause the listener to confront the usual assumptions about humans\u2019 position relative to animals.
\nIn addition to adopting a new lexicon he recommends one particularly clear principle:
\n“animal advocates should not engage with institutional animal exploiters on the latter\u2019s terms. No partnerships should be made with them, no agreements with them sought. We should, for example, refuse participation in campaigns to employ “humane slaughter” methods and withhold praise for measures\u2014such as “enhanced cages” for hens\u2014that may produce marginal welfare gains while leaving intact the resource paradigm<\/em>“.<\/p>\n

Although we agree that animal advocates should use the word “flesh” instead of “meat”, and say that “meat is not food” and that “animals are not livestock”, and we definitely agree that animal advocates should not engage with institutional animal exploiters on the latter\u2019s terms, we highly disagree that these suggestions, or any other for that matter, can ever solve the profound problem of speaking for others, or can seriously challenge the dominionist, anthropocentric and speciesist conceptual framework.<\/p>\n

That is the case since the very situation of humans representing animals\u2019 interests, and of humans judging whether actions done to nonhumans are in accordance with the norms and laws humans and humans alone have shaped, is in itself utterly dominionist, anthropocentric and speciesist, and since this utterly dominionist, anthropocentric and speciesist situation, is inevitable.
\nHumans and humans alone have the power to make rules and to apply them on everyone else, so dominionism, anthropocentricism and speciesism are inherent to an interspecies system where only one species makes and enforces all the rules.<\/p>\n

Even if one day humans would be finally willing to consider nonhuman animals interests equally, at any given moment it would be humans who would make the decision whether to make a decision based on animals\u2019 interests, or to distort if not ignore their interests, and it will always be according to human interpretation of other animals\u2019 needs and desires.
\nAnd even if it was possible for humans to read nonhumans very well, eventually everything is depended on humans\u2019 willingness to implement their interpretations of animals\u2019 needs and desires. It is always humans\u2019 decision. They can choose to respect animals\u2019 needs and desires or not. Humans can choose to force their own interests on others or to try and be considerate of others\u2019 interests as well. And even then it will always be based on humans\u2019 subjective interpretation of what others prefer, and never on the objective preferences of others.<\/p>\n

Given that conflict of interests will always exist, humans\u2019 interpretation will always be biased. If we\u2019ll take for example humans most favorite animal \u2013 dogs, they prefer never to be alone, be outside and play as much as possible, and get their most favorite food all the time. But few dogs really live like that. And many live horrible lives<\/a>. And if it doesn\u2019t happen with humans\u2019 most favorite animal, why would, and how could, it ever happen with fishes<\/a> and chickens<\/a> or frogs and raccoons<\/a>?<\/p>\n

Even if humans weren\u2019t so biased when it comes to others\u2019 needs, let alone when these needs must be fulfilled by humans themselves, their ability to interpret animals\u2019 needs is anyway highly questionable. When it comes to other animals it is highly unlikely that humans would be able to really understand them and act accordingly even if they really wanted to.
\nAnd it is highly unlikely that humans would ever really want to.<\/p>\n

Even if you truly believe that humans would someday truly consider taking the interests of nonhumans seriously, it is wrong to entrust animals\u2019 fates to humans\u2019 hands, and it is wrong to experiment with interpretations of their interests at their expense.
\nBut way before that, at no moment in history had humans proven that they could ever consider taking the interests of nonhumans seriously. So far, at every moment in history they have proven the opposite.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It is not only that humans are cruel masters<\/a> that makes this world so dominionist, anthropocentric and speciesist, it is the very fact that they are the masters and always will be. And a history of thousands of years is more than enough to realize that this is not merely a theoretical built-in injustice, but a built-in power structure that practically allows humans to torment trillions of sentient beings for thousands of years, with no sign of it ever ending.<\/p>\n

Dominionism, anthropocentricism and speciesism are impossible to eradicate because they are everywhere and in everything<\/a>. Every aspect of humans\u2019 lives is bound with dominionism, anthropocentricism and speciesism. Not just factory farming but any type of farming is a case of dominionism, anthropocentricism and speciesism<\/a>. The levels of discrimination and abuse obviously largely differ, but excluding nonhumans from a particular area, clearing the native vegetation and planting plants that suit humans\u2019 desires and not necessarily the needs of the native residents of the region, fencing the area, constantly poisoning nonhumans in it, changing the composition of the soil, dividing the nearby lands with roads to the farms, plundering water from other habitats, making noise with heavy machinery, crushing nonhumans with heavy machinery, polluting the area with humans\u2019 waste of many kinds and etc. are all unquestionably forms of dominionism, anthropocentricism and speciesism.<\/p>\n

So challenging human dominionism, anthropocentricism and speciesism must not only go way beyond animal advocates\u2019 lexicon but way beyond animal advocates\u2019 holy grail \u2013 veganism. Human dominionism, anthropocentricism and speciesism don\u2019t end with turning each human vegan. And it shouldn\u2019t even begin there, but with turning each one back to living like any other ape in the forests and the savannahs. Obviously that is not the world we wish and advocate for<\/a>, but at least it would be more coherent and consistent with challenging human dominionism, anthropocentricism and speciesism (as it would reverse many elements of the human occupation of this planet<\/a>).
\nDominionism, anthropocentricism and speciesism are inherent to every human activity. Even if you insist that a vegan world may be possible one day<\/a>, you can\u2019t seriously think that humans would be convinced to voluntarily go back to living like any other species, limited to a relatively bounded geographical area, living off the surrounding, and with a population that would include several million members only. That would be much closer to seriously challenge dominionism, anthropocentricism and speciesism, but it is extremely far from what is being demanded of humans, or even thought of, even by the more radical animal advocates.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Animal advocates focusing on factory farms, justly thinking that they are the greatest manifestation of dominionism, anthropocentricism and speciesism, are postponing the inevitable. At some point they are bound to realize that domination, discrimination and suffering is everywhere and in everything. At some point they are bound to realize that it is impossible to end dominionism, anthropocentricism and speciesism by social means.
\nThis world can never cease to be dominionist, anthropocentrist and speciesist, yet dominionism, anthropocentricism and speciesism should nevertheless somehow be ceased. Dominionism, anthropocentricism and speciesism are not less of an arbitrary discrimination, not less unjust, not less violent and not less cruel because they are even theoretically unabolishable. The only way to end dominionism, anthropocentricism and speciesism is to end the species. And the only ones who will ever consider doing it<\/a> are you.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In his article The Problem of Speaking for Animals Jason Wyckoff argues that animal advocates face a special case of “the problem of speaking for others”, mainly because when it comes to nonhuman animals “nearly all humans occupy a position of privilege and so nearly all speakers and their audiences will be situated in \u201cdiscursively […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-201","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlyonesolution.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlyonesolution.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlyonesolution.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlyonesolution.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlyonesolution.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=201"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/onlyonesolution.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":206,"href":"https:\/\/onlyonesolution.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201\/revisions\/206"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlyonesolution.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlyonesolution.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlyonesolution.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}