I'll be honest: Haraway's "Sharing Suffering" just seems way too extremist to me. I know that she's trying to convince her readers that we should treat laboratory animals with the same respect we would humans. However, her argument falls short when she tries to equate animal rights with human rights. For many people, including myself, animals will never share the same rights as humans, nor should they. Don't get me wrong--the last thing I want to do here is to start a debate over animal rights. I'm just saying that Haraway tries to support her argument with a controversial view on animal rights.
The clearest example of Haraway's flaw in her essay is her comparison of eating meat to the Holocaust; she writes, "Meat eating is like the Holocaust; meat eating is the Holocaust" (81). My response: are you kidding me? Meat eating is nothing at all like the Holocaust; the only similarity is that both involve taking away life on a large scale. By the same token, harvesting cornstalks is the Holocaust. Stem cell research is the Holocaust. The big differences between eating meat and the Holocaust include, but are not limited to, the following: meat eating serves a human purpose, whereas the Holocaust does not; meat eating doesn't murder six million people over the span of a decade; the Holocaust does. Again, whether animals and humans share the same rights or not is not the subject of this post. All I'm saying is that it's a debatable topic, and if Haraway wishes to use that concept as part of her argument, then she's got a pretty weak argument.
Now if no one agrees with my opinions, so be it. If you'd like to flame me for it, I'd welcome that gladly. But if you agree with me on any point--well, I guess I'd be ok with that, too.
~Tim Yu
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Tim: Actually, I think you are misreading Haraway, here. The passage on page 81 that you are talking about is actually Haraway describing the viewpoint of the fictional character Elizabeth Costello in J.M. Coetzee's The Lives of Animals. Even if you haven't read the book (I haven't), you should be able to gather from the context that Haraway thinks that kind of view (equating meat eating with the Holocaust) is much too simplistic. In fact, she prefers the behavior of Coetzee's other protagonist in Disgrace, who takes his dog to be euthanized humanely.
ReplyDeleteSo careful, everyone! When you are reading these texts, be aware that an author can often invoke multiple voices, especially when they are staging a conversation between many different ideological poles. Again, if you take the time to introduce the quote properly and establish its context, you won't be as likely to misrepresent the author's positions.
I actually find Haraway's argument rather compelling simply because her assertion of sharing suffering is a quintessential notion that all humans can identify with. This concept of suffering, regardless of the nature of suffering, is still nonetheless a human condition that is universal. Oftentimes, I feel that many people, myself included, are so desensitized to the taxonomic ways of understanding humans and other animals. Animals, especially animals that are not often domesticated by humans, are typically not viewed as intricate and complex beings who are capable of emotions like suffering and hurt. Her suggestion of being aware about the not just our actions but the ways in which we validate and invalidate or actions and/or perceptions.
ReplyDelete