Episode 58: Animal Rights in Palestine and Israel with Esther Alloun

05/02/2018

 

***Intro Music***

SO: Hey guys, welcome to knowing animals the podcast. Knowing Animals is a podcast where we talk to animal study scholars about a piece of their work. I'm Siobhan O’Sullivan and I do like KNOWING ANIMALS.

Now this episode of Knowing Animals as always is brought to you by our very good friends ASA. ASA is the Australasian Animal Studies Association. ASA is the membership organisation for animal study scholars in Australia, in NZ and around the world. ASA have a fantastically active FB page in which they post information about upcoming conferences, events, exhibitions, call for papers, funding opportunities and they also have they're own website, so why not check out ASA the Australasian Animals Study Association online and also think about joining ASA. Membership is just $50. Support the organisation that supports animal study scholars. So this episode of KNOWING ANIMALS comes to you from Sydney town, where I'm lucky to be joined by Esther Alloun! Esther is a PhD candidate at the UOW. Today we're discussing her article – “That’s the beauty of it - its very simple - animal rights in settler colonialism in Palestine Israel.” It appeared in the journal settler colonial studies in December 2017. Welcome to the podcast Esther.

EA: Thanks Siobhan!


SO: Can you start by telling us why you wrote this piece?

EA: So I guess my interest in the topic dates back to 2014/2015 when I started reading about what was happening in Israel and how it was becoming the first began nation, the Promised Land for vegans. Statistics like 8% of population being began or vegetarian which is the like the highest per capita in the world.

I was quite shocked and quite surprised by the whole thing because I guess being Jewish of an Arab background an I have family who lives in Israel as well and also being a vegan and an animal rights activist I was surprised that Israelis would become vegan or mass and all of a sudden they had an interest in animal rights.

SO: Ok, so you have a lot of things coming together - you have your own personal heritage, you have your commitment to veganism and animal rights yourself and also a connection with the Middle East. So how did you go about collecting the data for this piece?

EA: So this is part of the ethnographic research I did in 2017. I went to Palestine and Israel and I interviewed over 55 people, BRUCE (5:28) and mainly actually Jewish Israelis and also Palestinians. Palestinians both in Israel proper and also in the occupied territories in the west bank and I was trying to get a sense of what was they're experience of doing animal rights activism, what does it look like in the context, like Israel and Palestine.

SO: That was one of my questions - your what we call data other people call interviews, you had a really amazing access which I find a lot of people would find really difficult - was that difficult to organise?

EA: It was quite stressful to begin with because I guess I had some key people that I knew I wanted to interview mainly because I had identified them through looking at news articles on the topic and they're names just kept coming up, so I just thought that these are the movers and shakers of the movement - I need to interview them. Facebook was also very helpful and very conducive to making those connections. But definitely in terms of the Middle Eastern culture making specific appointments and getting people to stick to that in terms of the logistics is actually really difficult. Once I let go of some of those expectations and just followed the flow - attended protests, attended meetings, started talking to people, it got a lot easier.

SO: Hmm, wonderful. So, what you found was that the way in which the Jewish Israeli animal rights activists and the Palestinian animal rights activists do their activism is very different - can you start by telling us what you observed as being the identifiable features of the Jewish Israel animal rights activists?

EA: Sure, I guess I'm going to try and generalise and make it quite concise. Two main features are that in terms of the JI animal rights movement is that its single issues, so its solely focussed on animals and animals rights and veganism to the exclusion of all else. Secondly, it’s also very actively depoliticised. So you know they would endlessly [activists] tell me how it’s not political, how it’s not connected to politics and by politics it’s also important to understand that in the Israeli context politics means the occupation and the conflict. They have other words and other terms for economic issues or social issues, so that's the sort of activism that they do and they want to do and they insist on doing.

SO: Hmm, so then turning our attention to the Palestinian activists, how did you observe or understand theory animal rights activism.

EA: So I guess first I should say that the Palestinian activists that I write about in this piece are Palestinian who live in the west bank, in the occupied West bank and that’s important in terms of the positionality in this whole context. So these people are under occupation - violent occupation and they also do animal rights activism, so I guess the defining characteristic of what they do is that they cannot separate animal rights from human rights, and the oppression of animals and that of people. Actually they constantly draw connections and parallels between those two things. So they see animal rights and animal activism and animal welfare I guess as part of like almost building a strong civil Palestinian society as ending what one of the participants said ending the cycle of violence in Palestine, that’s how they see animal rights.

SO: Hmm, and so you then go on and read into these different ways of doing animal rights activism among people who live side by side or share the same community in summergods as saying something about the colonial experience. Can you tell listeners what conclusions you draw about these different modes?

EA: Yes, in terms of the settler colonial experience I think it puts people into very different positions so on the settler side so the Israeli settler side one of the conclusions that I drew out of this was that they can afford not to talk about politics and not to be concerned about politics because they are on the privileged side of that equation, because they don't really have to if they don't want to because they don't suffer the consequences of the occupation. That's one and I guess on the other side which is the indigenous Palestinian side they have very little choice but to weave together their animal rights activism and their experience of being oppressed because

even strategically if they didn't do that you know the Palestinian society or the Palestinian people around them wouldn’t listen to them, its a matter of also making it relevant, is to weave those things together.

SO: Yes, so you have an interest in case study in the piece about dog shelter for free living dogs, can you tell listeners a little bit about what was going one there and how you understand that example within the context of Israeli Palestinian relations.

EA: Yes, that's a very fascinating example and I wanted to write about it a lot more than what was allowed in the short word count but essentially it is a dog shelter in Bethlehem so in the occupied west bank, that’s being started by very dedicated women, Palestinian animal lovers and at some point in the 2010's around there, she got in trouble because she couldn’t pay the vet bills and the operation of the shelter etc. and she reached out to the Palestine community and she couldn't find any sponsors any money and eventually there is this Israeli organisation called protection petro... I cant remember what it stands for, and they helped her crowdfund to get enough money to keep the shelter to expand the operation of the shelter and so this example is really interesting because it troubles the binary that I just described - on the one hand Palestinians saying animal rights is part of our liberation movement and we don't really want to work with Israelis like a lot of Palestinian animal advocates in the west bank don't want to work with Israelis at all, but this woman in that particular position, she accepted and welcomed that help from the Israelis for the sake of the animals! So, what does this mean for animal advocacy in that region? I think it's a really interesting example

SO: Well, yes that case really got me thinking and I was wondering what your view s from the animals’ perspectives, do you think a particular way of doing animal rights activism matters to them, or what do you think?

EA: That's a very good question and i often come back to it when i get tangled in this very messy political situation when you have animal suffering and a lot of it and human suffering in parallel. And that's also the argument used by some of the Israeli AA. They say well animals wouldn't care whether we are Israelis or Palestinian and what we do to other humans so I’m not entirely sure how to answer your question. Maybe from the animals perspective it doesn't matter, probably perhaps in the short term I guess but I think in the big picture you can't extract the human animal relationship from the context in which it is happening so for me those two things really go together.

SO: Do you see effective animal activism in Israel to start with? 

EA: What do you mean by effective?

SO: Generating change perhaps? Would say animals from they're perspective would there be any perceivable increase in needs of their welfare or they're rights to life or something like that?

EA: Well I guess the movement has been successful in terms of legal and legislative changes to an extent - Israel banned circuses and cosmetic testing on animals and live dissection in high schools, has been trying to ban fur for which I wrote another article about this, and you know its hard to quantify in terms of the impact that Israeli vegans are having on saving the lives of animals, I don't think its that straightforward, but yes to an extent in terms of what activists call mainstream veganism or animal activism they are being quite successful at doing this. I guess at what cost to other political movements is always the question I come back to.

SO: And what about in Palestine or say in the occupied territories, are they having a positive impact on the lives of animals?

EA: Oh yes, I think most definitely they are having a very positive impact, even just in terms of just a big area that they work on is education, and educating people about animal welfare, particularly work or working animals like donkeys, horses, they have entire programs dedicated to educating people who use horses, donkeys. They also have a model, what a good god and healthy vegan diet can look like with the cafeteria that I write about in the article. I think they have very successful programs and they're doing a lot of great work on the very difficult circumstances.

SO: Do you have any theories or thoughts on why they might focus on animals when there’s so much human suffering around them?

EA: They get asked that question all the time. Usually they're response is (if I understand it well) is to say that the two go together and it goes back to that idea of the cycle of violence and you know reproducing the violence that is done to them by Israelis or Jewish settlers and how that gets perpetuated through violence on animals is something that they want to change. The second thing is that it is also something that I mention in the paper - they also focus on animals because they think its part of building a strong civil society and that’s what they want in the future Palestinian state and lastly I think they also say that and I think that’s a very profound insight is the fact that they are oppressed, the fact that they suffer so much doesn't give them an excuse so to speak to then go and oppress others and I think that's quite profound actually.

SO: Interesting. So Esther I ask everybody who comes on Knowing Animals to answer 5 quick questions - are you ready to answer 5 quick questions?
Can you recall the first piece of pro animal scholarship you ever read?

EA: Yes, it was an edited book called “Critical theory and animal liberation”, and the piece that I remember really the most about this was this Val Plumwood paper that was about the critique of sustainable meat and the locavore movement.

SO: Oh great, can you recall the first piece of pro animal scholarship you ever wrote?

EA: So besides what I wrote during my masters which probably doesn't count, it was an article that I published in the animal studies journal on ecofeminism and veganism using the work of Val Plumwood.

SO: Oh, wonderful. If you had to name one animal study scholar who’s had a big impact on you who would it be?

EA: So with this question I think I mean the politics of citation is something I take very seriously, I academia in general and in the field of animal studies in particular because we often forget legacies and who dies what so I deliberately picked a woman and I think it would be Claire Jean Kim and her book “Dangerous crossings - race species and nature in a multicultural age”, she has really influenced my work.

SO: Wonderful, did you hear her speak when she was in Sydney a few years ago? 

EA: No, but I saw the recording of it.

SO: Yes, it was very interesting.
What's the most important thing academics can do for animals?

EA: That’s a really tough one. So, I guess keep writing about animals and the violence that’s done to them and ways to challenge that violence and I think there are many ways. Not being afraid of doing engaged scholarship and eating delicious vegan food in front of your colleagues as well.

SO: So if you had the power to change 1 thing about the human-non human relationship what would it be?

EA: It would be I think I would want for animals not to be commodities and objects and property and that will be a good place to start.

SO: Wonderful. So Esther what are you working on next?

EA: My thesis which at the moment I am writing a chapter on the early Israeli animal rights movement which was heavily influenced by anarchist beliefs actually. also a piece on animal nationalisms, hopefully that will be in a journal issue that edited by Yamini Narayanan and Knowing Animalsthryn Gillespie. Also hopefully going back to Palestine in May to do a little bit more fieldwork with Palestinian animal rights advocates.

SO: So how can people find out more about your work?

EA: I have an academia.edu page, so just search my name, also you can follow me on twitter. Just search my name.

SO: Well Esther thank you so much for joining us for KNOWING ANIMALS and thank you to the listeners for joining us for KNOWING ANIMALS animals podcast where we talk to animal study scholars about their work. Don't forget to follow us on twitter at knowing_animals or you can follow me on SO_S. We also have a Facebook page and finally, do you know what I’m going to say? That’s right - don't forget to leave a review! Reviews make it easier for people to find us.
I'm Siobhan O’ Sullivan and I do like Knowing Animals. 

The UK's KFC Chicken 'Crisis' and eating Meat

Apparently the UK has run out of Chicken. Okay, they have not run out of chicken as such. But KFC has a supply chain problem of such monumental proportions that they are unable to get chicken to all their 900 stores. At last count,

160 stores across the UK had been forced to closed. Some news sites are reporting that 640 branches were shut at the height of the crisis.  

This has been big news and hard to miss. As a vegan, and user of social media, I have good reason to believe that my world view is skewed towards vegetarian-friendly news. It is certainly true that I rarely hear much about what’s happening in the world of chicken-eating. At the same time, my news feed is filled with inspiring stories of people turning vegetarian, or opening successful vegan businesses.

So what lessons might I take away from the biggest chicken-eating-related story of the decade?

1.     People will not give up their chicken lightly.

Under normal condition, in a three-month period, an estimated 43% of Britons will buy takeaway from a fast food restaurant that sells chicken.  

As the chicken drought took hold this week, news reports out of the UK suggest that some chicken meat lovers had become so distraught that they turned to the police for help. Both London and Manchester police issued statements saying that a lack of chicken does not come under their perve, and that fast food junkies should stop calling. Of course, it may be withdrawal from the secret herbs and spices that is actually causing the distress. After all, many other fast food restaurants also sell chicken.

But it seems clear that the thought of going without your favourite chicken meat for a couple of days is highly destabilising for some. According to the Metro newspaper, a bucket of KFC chicken currently fetches around £100, on e-Bay.

2.      The world is not on the cusp of turning vegan.

While I dearly hope that one day future generations will mock me for making this claim, based on the evidence available now, I think it is unlikely.

It seems to me that the number of people who identify as vegan, vegetarian, or who simply have meat free days, is increasing. But that increase is small compared to global population increases and the number of people eschewing traditional diet in favour of meat-heavy western diets. Moreover, what the KFC crisis tells me is that for some people meat eating is such a deeply entrenched behaviour that an alternative is unthinkable.  

3.     Harm minimisation via legislation is vitally important.

Meat eating is a deeply harmful practice. Broiler chickens are among the most miserable of all factory farmed animals. Their lives are short, and then they are killed to become nuggets. Meat is also environmentally harmful. It is water intensive, linked to de-forestation, and responsible for an estimated 18% of human produced greenhouse gas.

Yet many people are deeply committed to meat-eating.

There is a debate that rages among animal advocates about the best way to stop (or minimise) meat consumption. On one view, the state has failed to act, and therefore the way forward is to address individuals not as citizens, but as consumers. Get people to ‘do the right thing’ at the checkout.

I commend those who spend their time trying to make the world a better place in this way. But I simply cannot imagine the type of person who phones the police because their local KFC is closed for week, turning vegan.

In my opinion, we must also insist that the government shows leadership. We need to ask law makers to use their power (which we give them) to make the lives of broiler hens less horrible. This approach is unlikely to save them from death. But we can also insist that their death be less gruesome. We can punish those who do not comply. We can also ask the state to include environmental externalities in the cost of meat production.

So while the UK wakes to another day of KFC rations, the lesson for me is that meat-eating stirs great passion in some. But that passion is destructive. While I don’t know that I can persuade enthusiastic meat-eaters to like tofu. I do think it is reasonable for law makers to insist that meat-eaters take responsibility for the harm they do. It worked for cigarettes. Let’s try it with meat.

Peter Singer and Siobhan O'Sullivan discuss 'Animal Liberation'

This is a transcript of an episode of the Knowing Animals podcast which was released on 13/8/17. You can listen to the audio version here: 

My very sincere thanks to Arnav who transcribed this episode!

Happy reading!

Episode 9: Liberating Animals with Peter Singer

13/08/2017

SO: Hey guys! Welcome to Knowing Animals, a podcast where we talk to an animal studies scholar about a piece of their work. I’m Siobhan O’Sullivan and I do like knowing animals.

Today we’ll be discussing Peter Singer’s work “Animal Liberation” which was first published by Harper Collins in 1975. It’s now in it’s fourth edition. Welcome to the podcast Peter Singer!

PS: Thank you Siobhan, great to be with you. Just a tiny correction, Harper Collins only came into this quite late. The paperback edition was originally published by the New York review of books in New York and then later on got into paperback first with Avon, and now with Harper Collins.

SO: Ah well, I’ll have to write to the people at Wikipedia. PS: Oh yes, you’d better go online and correct it – edit it.

SO: Exactly. Well thank you so much for joining us Peter, it’s a great honour to have you here and as we’re going to see at the end of the podcast I always ask my guests five quick questions one of which is what was the first piece of work you read and you’re the most cited author so to have the source here is absolutely wonderful.
So let me start by asking you what inspired you to write the book “Animal Liberation?”

PS: I wanted to write animal liberation because I became aware of the way animals
are treated and I just thought that there’s something going on here that most people don’t know about. People like me, I was already in my 20’s, I was a graduate student at Oxford university, I considered my self reasonably well informed on what you might call broadly issues of social justice – I was active opposing the Vietnam War, of course

I opposed racial discrimination and so on. Women’s rights movement, but nobody talked about animals and what we were doing to animals and I thought this is something going on beneath the surface that needs to be exposed and not just exposed in terms of here’s a catalogue of horrible cruelties that we do but actually put in a systematic framework that shows that this is an important issue alongside all of those other issues that I just mentioned.

SO: Do you think it still is one of the lesser known issues or do you think that has changed?

PS: Oh I think that has changed dramatically. Its very often in the media and attitudes have changed to a small extent, practices have changed, but not nearly enough but people are aware, you know, you say animal rights to someone now and they don’t look at you as if to say “What’s that animals don’t have rights,” whereas nobody put animals and rights together in the 1970’s, early 70’s.

SO: Well certainly your book was a large part of that concept becoming known, so the idea of animal rights. Thinking about animals rights and your book “Animal Liberation,” is there something you’re most proud of or something that you’re most proud of?

PS: Look I’m really pleased that I wrote it and I’m really pleased it’s influenced a lot of people. Every time somebody comes up to me after a talk and says “I read Animal Liberation” x years ago and I’ve been vegetarian or vegan since. Yeah, I’m proud that and I’m proud that I’ve written a book that’s been able to change something as fundamental as what people eat and the attitudes that go along with that.

SO: So, its an iconic book and of course it’s often cited, it’s used by scholars but its also used by as you noted very accessible and people in the community are reading it – are there any particular principles or themes that people misunderstood or misrepresent when they talk about your work?

PS: The most misinterpretation of the work is the idea that animals and humans being equal, and to some extent I suppose I am responsible for that because the first chapter is called all animals are equal, and in that chapter I try and describe in what sense I mean that because of course there’s all sorts of things you can make when you say

two things are equal. And I’m pretty clear that I don’t mean to say for instance that it’s just as bad to kill a non human animal as it is to kill a normal human being, and I say what I do mean is that the pain or suffering of an animal ought to count just as much as the similar pain or suffering of a human being, that we shouldn’t say because one of them is homosapien, it’s pain matters more and if the other one is, whatever it might be that it’s pain doesn’t count or doesn’t count as much.
So many people, particularly opponents that haven’t really read the book I think just assume that I’m saying its just as bad to kill a rat than it would be to kill any human being and I’m pretty clear that that’s no what I’m saying.

SO: Right, well that brings me to the next question I had – so, correct me if im wrong, I’m sure you will, we’ve had conversations in the past where you’ve suggested this issue of death and what death might mean for non human animals is maybe something that is perhaps worthy of revision or other people presented arguments that you thought were compelling. Is there something in the book animal liberation that you think you didn’t get right or that you wish you had presented in a different way or framed in a different way?

PS: Ahh, so the issue about when or why killing animals is wrong is an issue I’ve struggled with. I did change slightly what I wrote in the first edition when I came to do the second edition and particularly when people use the argument that if animals have good lives, and of course this is a tiny minority of the animals that are produced for food, but if animals are produced for food and given good lives, and if that can only happen if the farmer is permitted to kill the animals to sell them for meat, then is it really wrong to kill them given that otherwise they wouldn’t have existed at all and given the assumption that their lives are good. So that’s always struck me as one of the more difficult philosophical questions in this area. And it still strikes me that way, and I wouldn’t say that that I’m satisfied with any particular answer on that and it’s good to see that there is ongoing philosophical discussion, there the book Tatjana Visak wrote called Killing Happy Animals and Tatjana and Robert Garner have edited a book with essays on that topic, so I think I welcome the fact that there is ongoing discussion to deal with that problem.

SO: Hmm, so that’s really the issue that you see as perhaps in need of further thought? The issue of where to draw the line, is that something that’s occupied your mind in the years since you wrote Animal Liberation or...?

PS: There are certainly issues about what kinds of beings are sentient or conscious, I mean that’s the sort of, that’s in a way a factual question, I mean it’s obviously got philosophical overtones in terms of what we regard as consciousness and what’s evidence of consciousness, but I mean in one sense I know where to draw the line – you draw the line where there’s sentience, where there’s a consciousness, where there’s a capacity to feel pain or pleasure. So philosophically I have a clear answer to that but if somebody then says “Well, what about insects?” you know can an ant feel pain, it’s very hard I think to know the answer to that question so yes I still... it’s not a question I struggle with philosophically as much I do with questions about killing but it’s still a question I’m still really interested in seeing what kind of evidence can be produced and can our knowledge advance to the extent that we could have good grounds to answering questions about various kinds of animals who are quite unlike us in many respects.

SO: Hmm, well I was at a conference a while ago, a political philosophy conference and there was this special panel on animals and a particular topic was being discussed and I said “Ah well no, for me there’s no sentience implication so the action is fine,” and they all said “Oh you’re such a Singerite, blah blah blah blah blah,” then this was not meant as a compliment I think. Are you still confident sentience is the issue?

PS: Yeah, absolutely and I’m not sure what people think might be the issue or why they would think that if it’s not going to be sentience. I mean once you abandon sentience why are we concerned with animals rather than plants? Seems to me that the fact that perhaps not all but many animals are sentient and in my view there’s no evidence that any plants are sentient, no good evidence, is a reason for why we talk about animals liberation and not the liberation of all living beings, all living things.

SO: And so the issue of the kind of framework that you use versus kind of rights discourse which is so powerful, have you ever been swayed or have you ever thought that maybe a rights framework could useful or you’re very committed to your framework and the rights discourse.

PS: Look I think a rights framework is useful in terms of political discussions and I’ve never denied that as for humans it is to say that somebody has a right to something is a clear shorthand way of saying that we should not be doing something to someone or we should do something that will help them achieve their rights and the same is true for animals – if someone wants to say that animals have rights not to be experimented

on, not to have cosmetics in they’re eyes or not to be packed up in factory farms, that’s clear and understandable, and I don’t have any objection to that. If you then say well what’s the basis for this claim, I think the basis for the claim can’t just be “They have rights” in other words can’t just be repeating this is if it’s a sort of obvious observable fact because it isn’t. it has to be something like they have interests or they’re interests are being harmed in this way, recognising either n terms of social practice or in terms of the law that it’s a violation of they’re rights to treat them this is likely to stop that treatment so let’s recognise that they have rights. I don’t have any philosophical problems with putting it that way.

SO: So you will have been exposed to many counter arguments – now I’m not talking about from within animal protection scholarship but from people who are opposed to that kind of scholarship or who believe its ill founded, it’s incorrect. I’ve heard you say previously that you’ve heard very little that you think is a compelling argument against what you put forward in animal liberation – is that still the case?

PS: Yeah, I think I’ve heard very little that is fundamentally against the idea of speciesism as I understand it – as we were saying earlier that there had been some criticisms that missed the mark because they’re not attacking what I’m saying and there have certainly been some criticisms on these what I would say issues around the edge of what I’m saying which are issues about killing and issues about how we should think about insects or about other invertebrates. Now those are important issues but I haven’t really seen a good argument for saying the fact that a being is not a member of our species is a reason for giving less consideration to its interests.

SO: So do you know why in that case, and I agree, I find your argument very compelling and I’m yet to hear anything that has swayed me in that view. Why do we not have 100% take up with such an argument?

PS: Well obviously that argument challenges the way we act with regard to animals and it challenges practices that most people are complicit in. If they’re not vegan, they are complicit in practices that harm the interests of animals, let me say if they’re not vegan and they’re not extremely selective about finding you know farms that really treat animals well and only eating those animal products then its clear that they are complicit in speciesism, and so they have an interest in resisting that argument and unfortunately that kind of consideration partly habit partly how they perceive they’re self interest, I don’t think it’s really in their self interest to continue to eat meat but how they see it,

but I think that’s a powerful obstacle, its very difficult to convince people when they see what they regard as central interests or central parts of their way of living as being threatened by the argument.

SO: Hmm, so self interest trumping logic.

PS: Yeah unfortunately it does that in lots of areas, not only this one.

SO: Okay well thank you very much Peter. Now I ask all my guests to answer 5 quick questions at the end of the podcast, now I’d be particularly interested in what you have to say. So first up, can you recall the first piece of pro animal scholarship you ever read?

PS: Umm, it would’ve been work for the book “Animals: Men and Morals” that was edited by Stanley and Gozlam Godovich and John Harris. Perhaps it was Rod Golovich’s paper because I’d met her in Oxford and she was certainly one of the people who opened my eyes to what was happening to animals.

PO: So can you recall the first piece of animal scholarship that you ever wrote?

PS: Yes, the first thing that I wrote was a review of that book that I just mentioned by Animals: Men and Morals which I reviewed for the New York review for books in April 1973, and I should say it was my suggestion to the editor of the New York review Robert Silvers that they should cover the book because otherwise there’s no way in the world they would have because as I said animal issues were off the radar and that book was published in England basically sank without a trace it wasn’t reviewed in any of the major papers or magazines or anything like that which is why I was so keen that it should be reviewed in the us when the us version came out.

SO: and so that’s amazing you hadn’t written any papers throughout your time as a student – the first thing was this iconic review that then...

PS: That’s right, because the first I ever thought about this issue was coming into contact with some of the people involved in Animals: Men and Morals who were in Oxford and then I thought this is fine, they’re writing these essays, they’re editing this book of essays so there’s nothing for me to say here because they’re already doing this. Now as I said when the book came out in England nobody seemed to notice it – it wasn’t discussed at all and that’s when I thought this book really deserves more attention and my views were not identical with those of the Gulovich’s or the contributors to that book but they at least broadly in the same ballpark so I tried to put the arguments of a number of different contributors (because it’s a collection of essays) into an overarching framework and I used the heading Animal Liberation for that. And that was the first thing that I did.

SO: And do you know why this particular issue spoke to you? When you said earlier that you were passionate about quite a range of social justice issues but animal issues has obviously also been particularly important to you, do you know why this spoke to you?

PS: You know I think I had been brought up with some sensitivity to animal suffering, my father certainly had sensitivity to animal suffering, not that he would talk about it a great deal. I can remember for instance that we would go for walks in the country and there would be somebody fishing in the beach or in the river and very often they would just haul the fish up and leave them in a basket flapping around while they suffocated and he would point that at me and say “I cant imagine how anybody could think it’s an enjoyable afternoon to sit on a riverbank while fish are slowly dying next to you,”

so that kind of I guess made me think about those things and then when I started to realise that this kind of suffering is also involved in meat production, you know we always ate meat, couldn’t really imagine family not having meat for dinner, then I started to think, yeah, this really does apply you know and it’s a much bigger issue than the stray angler, letting fish die slowly.

SO: Hmm, interesting. Okay the next question is if you had to name one animal study scholar who’s had a big impact on you, who would it be, and you’re going to be tempted to name me and I work but you must avoid that temptation.

PS: Its not easy because there has been a lot of good scholars but it’s not easy for me to say who has had the biggest influence but I think I would have to go back as I did to those beginnings, and talk probably about, so the first person who actually made

me think about this was Richard Keshin who’s a Canadian philosopher who hasn’t really written much about animals, but he did become a vegetarian but he was in turn influenced by Rosyn Godlovich who were also Canadians, all of this group was at Oxford when I was, and he did put me under them and Ross did write about animals as I say in an essay and co-edited that collection and so she was probably the
biggest influence on me.

SO: OK, so what’s the most important thing academics can do for animals?

PS: Academics have a big role in making sure that people are aware of this as an ethical issue so obviously most academics teach and it should be prominent in their courses and I particularly think it’s important to teach it alongside other issues so I for example have never taught a course only about animals but I teach courses in which there are issues like global poverty, maybe war, maybe the bioethical questions about life and death and a range of other issues and I always have animals there as one among a number of important moral issues, I think it’s important that people see this as something that if it’s something that you’re concerned about poverty and social justice and war and so on you should be concerned about animals as well.

SO: Interesting. SO if you had the power to change one thing about the human-non animal relationship what would that be?

PS: It would be the fact that we consume animals flesh and other products because I think that’s the cause of more animal suffering than anything else we do.
SO: OK, that’s a popular answer, so it’s a volume issue, so what are you working on next Peter?

PS: I’m revising another book called One World – a book about ethics and globalisation which came out in 2002 and which has been pretty well used in a lot of courses about global issues and international relations but all the facts have got very dated so

it needs an update so that’s what I’ve been up to.

SO: Oh, lovely. So where can people find out more about your work?

PS: There’s a website, you can google me and you can find a lot. So the website is a Princeton University website so https://uchv.princeton.edu/people/peter-singer, but if you google me you’ll find it and depending on what the nature of the work is you can google animal liberation and you can read about that, if you’re interested in my work on global poverty, there’s an organisation I’m involved with called The Life You Can Save, at thelifeyoucansave.org is the place to go.

SO: Wonderful. So thank you Peter and thank you to our listeners for joining us on Knowing Animals, the podcast where we talk to animal study scholars about their work. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter at knowing_animals or Facebook at Knowing Animals. Also don’t forget to tell others about us and review the podcast on iTunes. Reviews make it easier for others to find us. I’m Siobhan O’Sullivan and I do like knowing animals. See ya!