on vivisection

I must admit, it is tempting to embrace Lewis Carroll’s reading of vivisection as being the product of recent developments in the history of humanity. Carroll does a great job in the beginning of “Vivisection as a Sign of the Times” responding to any readers who might feel defensive when their long-accepted social practices are challenged. Critical of the reader who is shocked that individuals so “full of noble sentiments, can be hardhearted,” Carroll seems well aware of the gut reaction that many individuals have to the suffering of others (460). Reminiscent of Ram Dass’s observations on reactions to suffering, proponents of vivisection may “feel a little nervous and tentative, even defensive, about responding to the needs of others—particularly of those in considerable pain, who may make demands on us” (Dass 24). While Carroll does indeed penetrate the emotional depths of the problem, he does provide a problematic historical narrative to describe the problem. Carroll attributes the prominence of vivisection to the demise of a focus on religion and humanism, and instead the “development of the most refined religion of all—the worship of Self” (461). However, this treatment of animals traces long before the development of most major world religions and Enlightenment thought. Professor of philosophy Steven Best observes, “Hierarchy emerged with the rise of agricultural society some ten thousand years ago. In the shift from nomadic hunting and gathering bands to settled agricultural practices, humans began to establish their dominance over animals through “domestication.” In animal domestication (often a euphemism disguising coercion and cruelty), humans began to exploit animals for purposes such as obtaining food, milk, clothing, plowing, and transportation” (Best). Perhaps it would be more useful to historicize the development of animal abuse as something that has existed far longer than for a few centuries. The long-established psychological and emotional tendencies to degrade animals have existed in human beings for thousands of years, and only admitting the magnitude of the problem can mobilize the change of consciousness necessary to reverse such exploitation.

Robert Titus’s personal account of vivisection was certainly fascinating. However, his account of the silencing of opposition to vivisection in Victorian England was relatively incoherent. In the conclusion, Titus summarized the scientific community’s marginalization of vivisection opponents as being the result of the deployment of “an ad hominem argument” (480). However, it is unclear in the body of the essay what ad hominem argument Titus is referring to. He even concedes that scientists “fought to establish a “distinction between inflicting pain during ‘justifiable’ experiments and mere cruelty”” (475). This argument seems to beg for a utilitarian calculus when evaluating animal suffering, instead of functioning as an ad hominem argument. Although the essay later says that such anti-vivisection activists were silenced in the public sphere, the author draws comparisons between them and “feminists” and “labor activists” (475). However this comparison seems to disprove the validity of his ad hominem analysis, considering both feminists and labor activists made significant political gains post-19th century. I also feel like my objection is not mere semantics. In order to sufficiently advance a position against vivisection, it seems as if animal rights activists must grant a reasonable amount of legitimacy to the opposition’s argument. Admittedly, a strictly utilitarian perspective might justify the use of vivisection. Nevertheless, this is still a morally repugnant procedure to defend. As advocates of abstinence-only education seem to prove, advancing simplistic yet incorrect positions seems to only hurt political mobilization in the long run. It is worthwhile for animal rights activists to grant their opponents legitimacy while simultaneously refuting the meat of their arguments, rather than misarticulating them.

Steven Best. “Review of Charles Patterson, The Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust New York: Lantern Books, 2002, 280 pp.” Journal for Critical Animal Studies. Volume 5. Number 2.