i
CHANGE FOR THE IMPROBABLE: CHANGE FOR HUMAN AND NONHUMAN
SURVIVAL
by David Benfell
Residential Conference
Saybrook University
San Francisco, CA
iii
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...................................................1
THE GOAL: A SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION..........5
Anarchism: A Theoretical Beginning..................6
A Vegetarian Ecofeminist Society....................8
The Animal Liberation Movement.....................11
The Anarchist Experience...........................13
The Elites Strike Back.............................14
MEANS TO AN END...............................................16
Violence, Nonviolence, and Some Things In Between. .17
The Question of Property Damage...................18
Public Opinion....................................24
Of Multiple Means..................................28
Action Labeled as Terrorism........................31
CONCLUSION....................................................32
1
CHANGE FOR THE IMPROBABLE: CHANGE FOR HUMAN AND NONHUMAN
SURVIVAL
INTRODUCTION
Given threats to human survival, for which our system
of social organization is largely culpable, there can be
little question of the need for social change. Further, it
is apparent that the way we treat each other is connected to
how we treat the environment and how we treat animals, that
is, our choice of hierarchical social relations among humans
is inseparable from our hierarchical attitude towards nature
—both towards the ecology and towards animals—in that some
human animals, especially those who are wealthy, white, and
male, are privileged to exploit other human animals and
human animals accordingly presume a privilege to exploit
nonhuman animals and nature (Best & Nocella, 2004), utterly
without regard for sustainability and utterly without
2
regard for the categorical imperative not only that any
action should be taken only if it can be the rule for
everyone to take that action and that each person should be
an end in her- or himself, rather than a means to someone
else’s ends (Benfell, December 7, 2012, March 6, 2013, April
11, 2013; Johannesen, 2002).
It is apparent as well that the threats to human
survival are urgent—the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’
Doomsday Clock stands at five minutes to midnight (Socolow,
et al, January 14, 2013). For many plants and nonhuman
animals, too, the situation appears dire; we are believed to
be in a sixth mass extinction event, apparently due in large
part to human activity (Center for Biological Diversity,
n.d.; Livestock Environment and Development Initiative,
2006; McDaniel & Borton, 2002). Then, too, it is apparent
that not only can the elite not lead humanity—and all the
species of the earth—to salvation, but that their very
existence and the system of social organization that
3
privileges them stands in contradiction to such a salvation
(Bodley, 2008), and their diminished empathy (Benderev,
August 10, 2013) inhibits their interest in such a salvation
relative to their interest in the status quo and the
preservation of their position and their privileges in the
short term (Hayes, 2012; Lenski, 1966; Mills, 1956/2000;
Seldes, 1948/2009). This is most notably seen in their
repeated failures to commit to binding reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions (Biron, March 28, 2013; Democracy
Now!, December 8, 2011a, December 8, 2011c, December 4,
2012; Gillis, December 24, 2011; Goodman, December 13, 2011;
Leahy, April 28, 2013; Levitz, December 11, 2011), even as
they, too, face a dire longer-term threat (Chestney,
September 27, 2012; Deutschewelle, May 8, 2012; Klare, April
21, 2013).
Humanity and all of life on earth therefore face
existential challenges. Viewed not only as a system of
social organization but as a means of accumulating and
4
preserving essential resources to be made available when
needed for future emergencies (Lenski, 1966), the status quo
is not only a manifest failure but a destroyer of those
resources. One challenge for humanity is to develop a new,
sustainable system of social organization. Another is to
displace those in positions of power and privilege whose
interests may lead them to violently resist necessary change
(Benfell, March 15, 2012, April 11, 2013, August 19, 2013).
Finally, because all of us, not just the elite, not just
those who control resources, but all of us must cooperate to
avert our own extinction, the capitalist and social values
of competition and domination that induce a functional
emotional underdevelopment (Kasser, Cohn, Kanner, & Ryan,
2007) must be abandoned in order to secure those of
cooperation and concern for all life (Fromm, 1956/2010;
Korten, 2008). It will not work to reduce the problem of
human survival to a profit-making opportunity for a few
(Clark & York, 2008; Democracy Now!, December 8, 2011b),
5
which would, in any market system, come at the expense of
others (Kent, 2011; Muller, March/April, 2013; Weber,
1978/2010).
This would seem to rule out an incremental, iterative
approach such as outlined in the 8-stage MAP model (Moyer,
2001), in which each cycle may take years to produce a small
advance—this may yield results that are much too little,
much too late. Further, the MAP model leaves elites—a major
component of the problem—in place. It would also seem to
render inapplicable many—but not all—of the theories Suzanne
Staggenborg (2011) describes, which appeal to an existing
political order. On the other hand, alone among the
movements she describes, feminists have taken action to
fulfill immediate needs. A caution must be attached,
however: The modern women’s movement can trace its roots at
least as far back as 1790 (Kerber, 2004) and still cannot
claim to have achieved a goal of equality. Rather, in some
ways, to the extent that equality has drawn nearer, it has
6
been through an increased oppression of working class men
(Faludi, 2006).
This essay will return to the question of what elites
may be prepared to do in order to preserve their position,
which they have achieved in a competitive context (which is
not to say that the competition has been fair or that it has
proceeded according to ideological notions of how it should
proceed). For now, it is sufficient to note that they are
unlikely to acquiesce to a model of social organization that
I believe essential, and that they appear determined to
preserve a distinction between themselves and everyone else
(Benfell, March 15, 2012, April 11, 2013; Hayes, 2012;
Kasser, Cohn, Kanner, & Ryan, 2007; Lenski, 1966; Mills,
1956/2000; Shah, May 14, 2003).
Any struggle for particular rights must be accompanied by the need to develop a larger conversation about society and what has to be doneto dismantle its underlying structures of inequality of wealth and power so as to develop broader social movements built on a more organized
7
and totalizing sense of politics and political change. At the same time, given the dire circumstances the world currently finds itself in,the late Tony Judt was at least partly right in arguing that in this day and age one responsible task of the intellectual may not be to imagine a better world in such narrow terms but to prevent the existing one from getting any worse. Of course, Judt spoke from a cautious pessimism that haunted him just before his death, but I am sure he would view that challenge as the most elementaltask of the public intellectual and that it would represent just the beginning in a more sustained collective effort to move beyond pessimism to hopeas part of a broader effort to restructure the entirety of a corrupt and antidemocratic society. (Giroux, September 10, 2013)
This essay envisions and sets out some thinking for a
social change movement to achieve a radically egalitarian
society. Such a movement differs from traditional social
change movements (to the extent there are such things) both
in that it seeks not to persuade elites but rather to
dislodge them, and in that it asserts a foundational value
of egalitarianism, not only among humans but among human and
nonhuman animals and the environment which we all share.
This is extremely problematic in that such a social change
8
will likely take many generations, if not centuries or even
millennia, to achieve, time that may not be available. It is
perhaps even more problematic in that beyond these two key
points, I do not offer a prescription for what such a
society will look like, thus impairing my ability to
persuade those convinced of a need to see a plan in advance.
Nor do I even offer a convincing plan for how to achieve
this society; rather, this essay seeks to examine known
possibilities in a radical response to a dire threat.
THE GOAL: A SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
Somewhat simplistically, humans have two known models
of social organization. The first is indigenous and somewhat
romanticized, living in low-density, small, more egalitarian
hunting and gathering societies that grow slowly if at all,
largely in harmony with the earth, and in which nearly all
participate in the gathering of food. The total world
population in this model might have leveled out at an
9
ecological carrying capacity of 200 million. The second,
which has largely supplanted and exiled the first, entails
an ever more rapidly growing society, living in increasingly
high-density, large, labor-specialized, coercively
hierarchical, and unsustainable societies that genocidally
compete with surrounding societies to obtain needed
territories (and their resources). In this model, wilderness
is conceived of as evil and land which has not been
developed to maximize short term economic value is viewed as
empty and wasted. Natural ecosystems are to be conquered and
exploited (Bodley, 2008; Burroughs, 2008; Oelschlaeger,
1991; Outwater, 1996; Union of Concerned Scientists, August,
2000). Jared Diamond (1999) views the latter system as
inevitable for societies located in geographical conditions
that enable it.
In these models, the role of war is in dispute. There
is an absence of evidence for systematic, organized violence
in the Paleolithic and there are good reasons for suspecting
10
that war was at least considerably more common beginning in
horticultural societies (Burroughs, 2008; Lenski, 1966;
Oelschlaeger, 1991), but Barbara Ehrenreich (1997) theorizes
that as megafauna declined, hunting men sought alternative
expressions of violence. Since the Neolithic, it is apparent
that a principal preoccupation for elites is an often
violent competition—war—among themselves to determine who
will control which lands and the resources and peoples that
exist on those lands (Benfell, March 15, 2012). It is less
clear that war is a natural condition for humanity as a
whole (Jacobson, March 18, 2012) and Ehrenreich (1997) also
acknowledges a considerable difficulty in persuading men to
kill.
Anarchism: A Theoretical Beginning
Anarchism tends to be defined in relation to the state,
that is, in opposition to even the existence of rulers. As
Chris Rohmann (1999) puts it, “[a]narchists . . . see
11
authoritarian government as the tool of the powerful,
propertied classes and the enemy of a just social order” (p.
17). Phrasing it in this way, however, suggests what many
anarchists would argue to be an incomplete analysis, that
is, one that fails to fully attend to economic authority as
being at least as inimical to the autonomy of the person as
political authority. The qualifier, fully, in that last
sentence is important: “Contemporary libertarian
writers . . . describe themselves as 'anarchocapitalists'
and base their hostility to the state on the inviolability
of each individual's ownership of himself and his property”
(Labedz & Ryan, 1999, p. 30).
It is the notion of property itself that is
problematic: “Historically, anarchists have been hostile to
private property as ordinarily understood” (Labedz & Ryan,
1999, p. 30). Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s (1840/2007) critique
of property saw those who claimed it earlier as depriving
those who come or are born later of the means to provide for
12
the necessities of life—more famously, as theft, since all
humans, he believed have the right to be able to provide for
themselves. More brutally, and in the modern day, the
message of private property for those who are homeless, is
that they have no legal place to be, and therefore no right
to live. Property is inherently a form of authority,
realized in a right to control who may use or enjoy what one
claims as property. Accordingly, I view ‘anarchocapitalism’
as self-contradictory.
Anarchism, in addition, assumes a cooperative society
(Labedz & Ryan; Rohmann, 1999). Further, following from the
analysis of property, it follows that such societies
collectivize much property, such formerly being known as the
Commons.
Doubt is sometimes expressed that humans are capable of
being cooperative in the way that anarchists necessarily
assume (Rohmann, 1999) and I am inclined to agree that after
5,000 to 10,000 years of indoctrination in what Bodley
13
(2008) calls “commercial” society, that this may indeed be a
problem. Peter Kropotkin’s (1902/2006) classic, Mutual Aid,
citing even Charles Darwin himself, argues at length that
species that cooperate are better prepared for survival than
those that do not and describes a long history and
prehistory of cooperative humans. This necessarily assumes a
certain degree of altruism, and while there may be some
quibbling about just how altruistic humans naturally are, it
is clear that some altruism in human relations, perhaps
expressed most strongly toward blood relations, less
strongly to friends, and least strongly of all to strangers,
is essential to human societies and can be seen to exist
(Lenski, 1966; Kitcher, 2011).
To the extent that this anarchist view of cooperative,
somewhat altruistic humanity is accurate, it would be the
competitive, individualistic traits manifest in “commercial
society” that are the deviation. Bodley (2008) accordingly
argues that humans existed for hundreds of thousands of
14
years in just such relatively egalitarian, cooperative
societies and that “commercial” society has been an
aberration of the last 6,000 years. We will return to this
comparison.
A Vegetarian Ecofeminist Society
In our view from the shore, we see animal abuse asjust one symptom of a much larger disease complex that also brings us racism, sexism, militarism, environmental destruction, alcoholism, drug abuse,domestic violence, male domination and a downrightbad attitude toward our fellow creation, just to name a few. (Western Wildlife Unit, 2004, p. 189)
If Philip Kitcher’s (2011) Ethical Project entails an
expanding class of moral persons, that is, of beings
entitled to autonomy in an evolutionarily developing ethics,
vegetarian ecofeminists, such as Greta Gaard (2002, 2011),
Patricia Denys (2011), and Karen Warren and Duane Cady
(1994), explicitly connect various forms of oppression among
human animals, such as those of class, race, and gender, to
those of the environment and of nonhuman animals, and they
15
expand the class of moral persons to include nonhuman
animals. Though vegetarian ecofeminist scholars may rarely
refer to the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), and advocates
for animal liberation—some of whom are scholars themselves—
may rarely invoke the label of vegetarian ecofeminism, the
intellectual similarity is too obvious to ignore. As Steven
Best and Anthony J. Nocella II (2004) put it,
Like racism or sexism, speciesism creates a false dualistic division between one group and another in order to arrange the differences hierarchicallyand justify the domination of the "superior" over the "inferior." Just as society has discerned thatit is prejudiced, illogical, and unacceptable for whites to devalue people of color and for men to diminish women, so it is beginning to learn how utterly arbitrary and irrational it is for human animals to position themselves over nonhuman animals because of species differences. Among animals who are all sentient subjects of a life, these differences —humanity's claim to be the solebearer of reason and language—are no more ethically relevant than differences of gender or skin color, yet in the unevolved psychology of thehuman primate they have decisive bearing. (Best & Nocella, 2004, p. 13)
16
The dualism that Best and Nocella (2004) refer to
unmistakably echoes the dualism—or, as Elizabeth Minnich
(2005), arguing that ‘dualism’ suggests a parity, prefers to
call it, hierarchically invidious monism—critiqued by
numerous feminists and other critical theorists (Code, 1991;
Collins, 1990/2010; Meyer, 2008; West, 1990/2010).
Profoundly, it echoes the hierarchically invidious monism of
colonizer and colonized, connecting classic conceptions of
empire with multiple forms of oppression, including that of
the coercive hierarchy of law and so-called “justice” that
must be recognized as a problem in and of itself. It invites
a remembering of the relationship so often found among
indigenous peoples that connects them to their ancestral
lands (Battiste, 2008; Cannella & Manuelito, 2008; Fine,
Tuck, & Zeller-Berkman, 2008; Giroux & Giroux, 2008; Grande,
2008; Jaramillo & McLaren, 2008; Kincheloe & Steinberg,
2008; Ladson-Billings & Donnor, 2008; McCaslin & Breton,
2008; Said, 1994; Saavedra & Nymark, 2008; Stonebanks, 2008;
17
Swadener & Mutua, 2008), and implicates an often forgotten
relationship between all humans and the earth.
For me, this fundamental relationship places vegetarian
ecofeminism and, hence, animal liberation scholarship
squarely in the critical tradition and as a logical
extension of anarchism (Gordon, 2008; jones, 2004; see also
the analysis in Schnurer, 2004), with differences appearing
more as developmental than as categorically exclusionary.
Vegetarian ecofeminism and animal liberation scholarship
both connect the violence of the slaughterhouse, the fur
trade, vivisection, dairy industry, and environmental
destruction with the violence of war and the structural and
physical violence of class, race, and gender oppressions
(Adams, 1991; Bernstein, 2004; Cole & Morgan, 2011; Denys,
2011; Gaard, 2002; Gillespie, 2011; Glasser, 2011; Schnurer,
2004; Singer & Dawn, July 25, 2004). As humans, our survival
depends upon an abandonment of violence. In both vegetarian
ecofeminist and animal liberation thinking, this does not
18
mean merely abandoning some forms of violence, but rather
that we must abandon them all.
The notion that animal rights activists are somehow anti-human is untrue. Rather, we choose tobe activists for other species because billions ofinnocent animals are murdered each year, without even a twinge of guilt. We are vegans because we realize that violence and hatred must be destroyedat the root, in our everyday habits of consumption. We embrace Alice Walker’s words of wisdom: “The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men.” (Yourofsky, 2004, p. 128)
The society that incorporates total nonviolence is the
society best equipped to face the massive challenges that
humanity now faces. That leaves a lot open in terms of
organization—intentionally. To do otherwise is to adopt a
prescriptive attitude, and thus to adopt a hierarchical
stance. It is better for us to come together as equals and
ask, what shall we do now (Gordon, 2008)?
19
The Animal Liberation Movement
A possible difference between vegetarian ecofeminism
and animal liberation scholarship, however, is that animal
liberation scholarship offers not merely a critique of our
present system of social organization but also more
explicitly a bridge to activism, exploring not only
vegetarian ecofeminism but the ethics of action. Action may
be divided into two categories. The first, indirect action,
by its nature, gains more attention and may therefore seem
more familiar. It consists of actions that “aim[] for future
change through more circuitous routes [than direct action],
such as education, legislation, and symbolic demonstrations
of opinion.” The second, direct action, includes “activist
tactics that, like boycotts and sabotage, are intended to
have an immediate impact on a problem or its causes” (jones,
2004, p. 137). The role of each within the animal liberation
20
movement—or any movement—is a topic to which we will return
at length.
In both direct and indirect action, the animal
liberation movement exists within a constellation of
movements that have arisen or become prominent in response
to the advance of neoliberal ideology, manifest in economic
globalization and the increasing power of multinational
corporations. Involved groups that specialize in direct
action include the Animal Liberation Front, Sea Shepherd,
and Earth First! (Gordon, 2008; McCurry, January 9, 2012;
MercoPress, December 19, 2012; Moghadam, 2013). Some other
movements respond to neoliberalism and economic
globalization, which has “taken away much of the developing
countries’ sovereignty, and their ability to make decisions
themselves in key areas that affect their citizens’ well-
being” (Stiglitz, 2007, p. 9) and undermined wages,
employment security, and environmental protection in both
the developed and developing worlds, leading to an increase
21
in social inequality (Bernanke, February 6, 2007; Bullard,
Mohai, Saha, & Wright, March, 2007; Hatton, January 26,
2013; Karabell, May 4, 2012; Moghadam, 2013; Muller,
March/April, 2013; Oskamp, 2000; Ritholtz, July 9, 2013;
Stiglitz, 2007; Union of Concerned Scientists, August, 2000;
Weaver, 2009; Zakaria, January/February, 2013). The Trans-
Pacific Partnership, now being negotiated in secret, is
testament to the determination of elites to pursue these
irresponsible neoliberal policies despite these movements
and despite a well-established record of harm for workers
and the environment. Reportedly, the agreement will
undermine the sovereignty even of developed countries by
enabling multinational corporations to challenge regulations
that they believe limit their profits in courts run by
corporate lawyers. By advancing so-called “free trade”
further, the agreement is expected to further undermine
workers’ conditions and environmental and safety and health
regulations. Concern has also been expressed that its
22
provisions may further enhance intellectual property
“rights” at the expense of consumers (Biron, March 5, 2013;
Bybee, September 12, 2012, February 12, 2013; Carter, June
13, 2012; DuRand, April 12, 2013; Gallagher, March 6, 2013;
Hamburger, Leonnig, & Goldfarb, July 9, 2012; Marshall,
November 25, 2012; Paley, April 17, 2013; Smith, June 19,
2013; Stamoulis, April 12, 2013; Sutton, September 27, 2012;
Wallach, June 27, 2012, November 21, 2012).
The Anarchist Experience
Historically, anarchists—or at least near cousins to
anarchists—have occasionally pointed to some societies or
organizations that address some problems with what John
Bodley (2008) labels as “commercial” society, Riane Eisler
(1995) labels as “dominator” society, and Philip Slater
(2009) calls “control” culture (Fromm, 1956/2010; Kropotkin,
1898/1997, 1902/2006). But Uri Gordon (2008) limits his
examples to activist groupings, which often do not adopt the
23
anarchist appellation and which may be ephemeral; he offers
no pretense that the theories he describes in their
application might scale to larger, more stable societies.
Indeed, some such groupings—existing in and combatting the
present paradigm—believe they depend upon a degree of
anonymity (Animal Liberation Front, 2004b; Best & Nocella,
2004), hardly consistent with an image of settled society.
Still, there are examples from relatively recent times,
extending into the present. The mayor of one small
Andalusian town (in Spain) seems to have adopted at least
some anarchist principles in collectivizing land and
guaranteeing employment for all—in a country where the
unemployment rate was 27 percent (Fotheringham, May 12,
2013). Others, including Noam Chomsky (1976/2005), Erich
Fromm (1956/2010), who labels it communitarian socialism,
and Emma Goldman (1972/1998) seem to believe that anarcho-
syndicalism, which has met with some success in Spain since
before the Spanish Civil War, offers a way forward. The
24
Mondragon Corporation (n.d.), based in Spain but now
operating internationally, claims over 85,000 employees and
functions as a cooperative of cooperatives, largely
implementing anarcho-syndicalist ideas.
As impressive as, for example, the Mondragon
Corporation appears to be, however, it remains unclear if
its model can continue to scale upwards, from the several
tens of thousands the organization now employs to the
several billion that now occupy our planet, and it remains
to be seen what will happen if power elites, who combined
forces even when viciously opposed to each other, to crush
anarchism in the Spanish Civil War (Chomsky, 1969/2005;
Goldman, 1972/1998), decide that any of these examples pose
a threat to their position.
The Elites Strike Back
The case of the Spanish Civil War in 1936-1937 is
instructive. Anarchists had aligned with—indeed were even
25
participating in the government of—increasingly Communist-
led Republican forces which were engaged in combat with
Fascists. Anarchists controlled large segments of the
country. But in the end, the Communists turned against the
Anarchists and one might suspect that the power elites the
world over cared less whether Fascists or Communists were in
power in Spain than in whether an anarchist system of social
organization might deprive the country of any power elites
at all (Chomsky, 1969/2005; Goldman, 1972/1998).
It is in this light, and in light of a centuries-long
struggle by royals and nobility to suppress relatively
egalitarian and cooperative towns and guilds of the medieval
era (Kropotkin, 1898/1997, 1902/2006) that I view with some
alarm the militarization of the police in the United States,
a militarization that has become the standard response to
anti-capitalist and anti-globalization protests (Balko, July
7, 2013; Becker & Schulz, December 21, 2011; Democracy Now!,
February 15, 2013; Elliott, December 24, 2011; Morey, May
26
14, 2013; Schneier, August 13, 2013; Wolf, December 21,
2012). For if it is indeed the case that power elites are
unwilling to tolerate an anarchist society, then it follows
that these militarized forces will be deployed against such
societies.
This development coincides with the rhetorical useof the word "war." To the police, civilians are citizens to protect. To the military, we are a population to be subdued. Wars can temporarily override the Constitution. When the Justice Department walks into Congress with requests for money and new laws to fight a war, it is going to get a different response than if it came in with astory about fighting crime. Maybe the most chilling quotation in the book is from William French Smith, President Reagan's first attorney general: "The Justice Department is not a domesticagency. It is the internal arm of national defense." Today we see that attitude in the war onterror. Because it's a war, we can arrest and imprison Americans indefinitely without charges. We can eavesdrop on the communications of all Americans without probable cause. We can assassinate American citizens without due process.We can have secret courts issuing secret rulings about secret laws. The militarization of the police is just one aspect of an increasing militarization of government. (Schneier, August 13, 2013)
27
Let’s face it—many of us are afraid. Afraid of being wrong. Afraid of being alone. Afraid of spending years in prison. Afraid of being shot or incinerated, like the 60 adults and 24 children inWaco, Texas at the bloody hands of the US government. Fear is our enemy’s greatest weapon, because, unlike having to place a police officer in every home, it is already there, waiting to be unleashed with carefully orchestrated images on corporate-controlled TV and newspapers. Prison cells with their iron doors slamming shut, police beatings by baton-wielding Nazis, “terrorists” being led away in orange suits and chains, images that keep our fear at being different alive and strong. (Western Wildlife Unit, 2004, p. 190)
MEANS TO AN END
At the outset, I should caution here that I will be
looking further into theories of social change movements in
the coming months. In its entirety, while this essay is a
new work, it should be taken as an interim statement written
at the beginning of a renewed exploration of this topic and
as a review of what I have previously learned. While I have
read some of the books and some of the other materials that
have been suggested for this exploration, I have conducted
28
very little in the way of a new literature search in the
preparation of this essay.
Accordingly, I rely heavily on the example of the
Animal Liberation Front (ALF) as a radical activist movement
for social change, for I have materials relevant to this
movement at hand. While, as Kim Stallwood (2004) sees
herself, I see myself as a poor candidate for clandestine
work, as a vegan, as an anarchist, and as one who argues for
a radically egalitarian society, the ALF—warts and all—has
attracted my attention, in large part because I have an
interest in how vegans and animal rights activists present
themselves to the world. Some of what appears here is simply
the consequence of that attention.
However, I do not employ the example of People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). I and others have
criticized this organization for its exploitation especially
of women’s bodies and for its hypocritical and appalling
euthanasia practices, in which a vast majority of adoptable
29
animals which come into its care are put to sleep. Apart
from advocacy of veganism, PETA offers nothing in the way of
social change that I advocate (Benfell, March 30, 2009;
Glasser, 2011; Marsh, May 24, 2013; Winerip, July 6, 2013;
Winograd, April 2, 2013).
Violence, Nonviolence, and Some Things In Between
Even without the urgency of climate change, nuclear
materials, and bioengineering (Socolow, et al, January 14,
2013), some activists view at least some issues of justice
in terms of violence waged by the powerful against the
powerless and, having become frustrated with the limited
effectiveness of more peaceful means, see nonviolence as
complicity with that violence. They insist on immediate
direct action and reject any appeals to the contrary (Best,
2004; Best & Nocella, 2004; Friedrich, 2004; Molland, 2004;
Regan, 2004; Stallwood, 2004).
30
An intense sense of urgency informs their [Animal Liberation Front] actions. They recognize a profound crisis in the human relation with the natural world, such that the time has long passed for moderation, delay, and compromise. They can nolonger fiddle while the earth burns and animal bodies pile up by the billions; they are compelledto take immediate and decisive action. (Best & Nocella, 2004, p. 11)
Driven by an abhorrence of all abuse and exploitation of the weak and innocent, the activists break unjust laws and risk their freedomin pursuit of a rightful cause—animal liberation—in much the same way that campaigners in past struggles fought for the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of women. It used to be a “crime”to help a slave escape from bondage. It was—indeed, still is!—a “crime” to torch empty buildings in order to commit economic sabotage. How many thinking people would now condemn the abolitionists and Suffragettes for taking such extra-parliamentary actions? (Webb, 2004, p. 75)
Those who believe that the purposes of animal liberationists are unjust would appear to inherit the burden of proof. After all, there is little dissension concerning the liberation of slaves, Indians, and Afghans. The objective of freeing a group of individuals from a repressive regime so that they can live autonomous lives hardly seems in need of vindication. Thus, the anti-liberationist bears the onus of showing why the animal liberation movement is relevantly different
31
from these other lauded campaigns. (Bernstein, 2004, p. 95)
The Question of Property Damage.
Violence, however, at least outside that waged by the
State or among States, is generally not a preferred way, at
least among humans, to win friends and influence enemies.
Direct action may therefore be calibrated such that violence
—and some deny that violence is even an applicable term—may
only occur against property, not against human or nonhuman
animals (Animal Liberation Front, 2004a, 2004b; Best &
Nocella, 2004; Webb, 2004). Even this is controversial and
some allege that the line between property destruction and
endangerment of life is increasingly being breached. Writing
of Animal Liberation Front (ALF) direct actions, Kim
Stallwood (2004) insists on four core values, including one
that appears entirely to preclude property damage. However,
she writes,
32
For example, as in acts of open rescue, prying open and permanently damaging a lock or padlock isacceptable when the intent is to gain access to documents and evidence of animal cruelty and suffering. As in the practice with open rescues, areplacement lock is left at the site of the damaged lock. Also, in certain circumstances, carefully selected property damage that renders inoperable equipment that is directly used to cause suffering and pain to animals is compatible with the four core values. This also includes similar minimal property damage to free animals from oppression. As with leaving a replacement lock, some form of compensation to the minimal damage caused should be made, which serves as a symbolic and actual reparation.
Clearly, what is incompatible with the four core values of animal advocacy is gratuitous violence, including graffiti, wanton property destruction or vandalism, and home demonstrations (Stallwood, 2004, p. 89)
Judging from stories to be found on the North American
Animal Liberation Press Office (n.d.), there is little if
any evidence available that Stallwood’s (2004) constraints
have gained substantial traction among animal
liberationists. Rather, the impetus to relieve suffering and
33
distress among nonhuman animals now often outweighs any long
term goals the ALF may have as a social movement.
Others may argue that property destruction is still
violence. Tom Regan (2004) phrases it this way:
Ask any member of the general public whether firebombing an empty synagogue involves violence. Ask any lawyer whether arson is a violent crime (whether or not anyone is hurt). The response is overwhelmingly likely to be, “Am I missing something? Of course these acts are violent.” The plain fact is, our language is not tortured or stretched when we speak of the “violent destruction of property.” The plain fact is, we donot need to hurt someone in order to do violence to some thing. (Regan, 2004, pp. 232-234)
From my limited reading of ethicists’ arguments, this
argument might seem insufficiently rigorous. Some might
consider it a sort of populist appeal, substituting a
dubious “common sense” for careful philosophical reasoning.
I would argue, however, that animal rights activism
straddles a curious divide between public opinion and
scholarly ethical reasoning. If it settles for dry
34
philosophical arguments in peer-reviewed journals, it
abandons the possibility of any popular appeal and limits
its claim to activism. If it settles for, say, Saul
Alinsky’s (1971/1989) Rules for Radicals—Alinsky cites omissions
in the U.S. Declaration of Independence that make it a one-
sided document to make his point—it abandons any
intellectual integrity whatsoever, simplifying and omitting
truths for popular consumption. The space in between those
poles may not always be comfortable, but may sometimes be
appropriate.
Steven Best and Anthony Nocella II (2004) reject
Regan’s argument, asserting that property cannot suffer in
the way that animals and humans do. If Best and Nocella
assume that all pain—or perhaps the only pain that counts—is
physical in origin, their argument is weak. Any animal,
human or not, may suffer, for example, if its home, whether
labeled as property or not, is damaged; or if its food,
again whether labeled as property or not, is stolen; or if
35
it is deprived of any of the material conditions necessary
for its survival, still quite regardless of whether these
conditions assume the socially constructed label of
property. The purpose of property damage, while possibly
targeting objects that may be luxurious beyond the level of
necessity, is nonetheless to cause suffering of this kind,
in an attempt 1) to dissuade animal abusers and 2) to
persuade potential animal abusers to desist (Schnurer,
2004).
Regan (2004) further argues that a vast majority of
property damage in the name of animal liberation—I might
suggest the recent example of a garden hose turned to flood
the home of a Wisconsin fur auction executive (Animal
Liberation Front, August 31, 2013)—does not serve an
immediate purpose of liberating animals. He then argues that
nonviolent alternatives have not been exhausted, that the
act of burning down a laboratory after the animals have been
liberated exceeds the violence that is necessary. The first
36
of these arguments seems reasonable enough. The second,
however, seemingly fails to adequately consider 1) that the
lab, if preserved, may continue to be used as a facility for
the abuse of animals—the latter being considered entirely
expendable—and 2) anywhere from decades to millenia of
apparently failed effort that led to the direct action
approach in the first place. Noel Molland (2004) dates a
history of the movement to Pythagoras in 200 BCE, who
evidently recommended vegetarianism and compassion for
animals. Best and Nocella (2004) similarly cite the example
St. Francis of Assisi. More directly, Best and Nocella point
to a contemporary movement that began in the 1970s but which
some activists perceived by the late 1970s and 1980s to have
failed to have brought about the substantial change needed.
Regan (2004) then proceeds to an argument on media
effects. Here he relies on what appears to be “common
sense,” that the media tells a story of “law-abiding” animal
37
abusers in conflict with “beady-eyed flamethrowers” (p.
235). As we shall see, the story is not quite so simple.
Freeman Wicklund (2004) offers a somewhat stronger
version of the argument against property destruction in
arguing that the means produce the ends, that in order to
produce a society in which animals rights are respected,
“the majority of people . . . [must] have voluntarily adopted
an animal rights philosophy” (p. 238). Anarchists might
recognize the argument: In broad outlines, it resembles the
one marshaled by Michael Bakunin against Karl Marx, that the
State, which lives by coercion (Weber, 1946/2010), cannot
produce a cooperative society (Morris, 1993). Benedict
Anderson (2006) explicates the problem, pointing out the
multiple ways—especially in a modern society—in which
successful revolutionaries
inherit the wiring of the old state: sometimes functionaries and informers, but always files, dossiers, archives, laws, financial records, censuses, maps, treaties, correspondence,
38
memoranda, and so on. Like the complex electrical system in any large mansion when the owner has fled, the state awaits the new owner's hand at theswitch to be very much its old brilliant self again. (Anderson, 2006, p. 160)
Anderson (2006) points to other factors as well—
traditions and identities among them—that raise the question
for any violent revolution: Having achieved their ends by
force, how are revolutionaries to avoid replacing one set of
thugs with another? Given the prevailing paradigm of the
State, of commercial society, and of functionalism (or of
functionalist conservatism) that Weber (1946/2010), Bodley
(2008), and Lenski (1966) respectively point to, each in
their own way but ultimately at a single concept, one might
expect a difficult search for a successful example.
Paired with that question, however, is a corollary one:
How can a revolution displace elites who will call upon the
full capacity for violence of the State in order to preserve
their positions? Ginsberg (August 12, 2013) somewhat
brutally puts it this way:
39
People say that problems cannot be solved by the use of force, that violence, as the saying goes, is not the answer. That adage appeals to our moralsensibilities. But whether or not violence is the answer depends on the question being asked. For better or worse, violence usually provides the most definitive answers to three major questions of political life: statehood, territoriality, and power. Violent struggle—war, revolution, terrorism—more than any other immediate factor, determines what nations will exist and their relative power, what territories they occupy, and which groups will exercise power within them. (Ginsberg, August12, 2013)
Ginsberg (August 12, 2013) offers a single
counterexample, which he considers “one of the rare
exceptions,” in the “peaceful divorce of Slovakia and the
Czech Republic,” but each of those states retain an elite
class of thugs—civilized perhaps, but claiming a monopoly on
the use of violence on their territory and thus conforming
to Weber’s (1946/2010) definition of the State. This example
thus fails to counter the example of the Spanish Civil War,
in which elites seemingly were willing even to sacrifice
40
their own position to ensure that an order in which there
were at least some elites was preserved.
Notably, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), while
promising never to harm “innocent life,” has foresworn
nonviolence, arguing “that a revolution is necessary in the
United States of America to rid the world of one of the
greatest terrorist organizations in planetary history, the
US government” (quoted in Best, 2004, p. 305).
Anarchists and, by extension, animal liberation
activists should remember that any violence is a form of
coercion. Violence, except in defense, except as an act of
resistance to domination, is an act of domination and is
therefore inherently authoritarian and therefore cannot be
anarchist action. And so it is incumbent upon activists to
be very certain that their violent actions are clearly acts
of defense, either of themselves or of other innocents.
41
Public Opinion.
Far from alienating our likely allies, I have found that ALF activities speak to people, regardless of their belief in animal rights. They provide an opportunity to discuss the gravity of the situation, the fact that animals suffer and die like we do, the fact that they are not less important than we are, the fact that when animals are liberated, there is cause for celebration, notshame. People grasp these concepts, even if they don’t agree. (Friedrich, 2004, p. 257)
That animal liberationists may weigh the urgency of
relieving animal suffering in the here and now as justifying
direct actions to free them is not to say that these
activists do not care about influencing the public. Maxwell
Schnurer (2004), using the example of a butcher learning of
an ALF action against a laboratory where vivisection is
performed, considers it unlikely that the butcher will be
moved. Rather, “the meaning of the ALF is in the argument
presented to those who are listening: that some humans are
willing to sacrifice everything for animals” (Schnurer,
2004, p. 113), which is to suggest that these activists, in
42
some sense, view their own struggles as heroic and hope that
some other humans will recognize their actions accordingly.
While omnivorous humans might not initially be inclined to
view such activists as heroes, Schnurer goes on to argue
“that social movements are effective precisely at this
moment when they alter the very fabric of meaning that
people cling to,” that is, when inadequately examined
meanings are challenged. Further, he writes that “the ALF
makes a pointed rebuttal to the ideas of speciesism, and
their actions represent a vigorous rejoinder to those whose
system of meaning allows them to commit evil,” by
“document[ing] a world [of atrocities against animals]
hidden from view, . . . [by] communicat[ing] a direct sense
of warning [that they must be aware of the stakes of the
issue] to all who participate in animal oppression . . .
[and] to all who might encounter, or consider taking part
in, animal oppression” (p. 114).
43
A similar shift in meaning occurs when, for example,
Martin Luther King, Jr.,
expected them [the state and county political leadership at Selma, Alabama] to respond with violence and, in doing so, imprint themselves on the collective consciousness of a national television audience as the brutal oppressors of heroic and defenseless crusaders for freedom and democracy. With network cameras rolling, Alabama state troopers viciously attacked marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, seriously injuring many of them in what the news media called "Bloody Sunday." (Ginsburg, August 12, 2013)
Benjamin Ginsburg (August 12, 2013) views so-called
nonviolence as an intentional provocation. In his view,
nonviolence as a tactic of social movements is anything but
nonviolent. It has been repeatedly clear that violence in
service to the status quo is often counterproductive.
Gerhard Lenski (1966) accordingly expected elites to employ
propaganda in order to establish legitimacy, so as to
minimize the need for violence, just such as seen in Selma,
Alabama, in March 1965 (Ginsburg), in the violence of the
44
labor struggles (Zinn, 2005), in the counterculture
movements of the 1960s and early 1970s (Aptheker, 2006), and
against the Occupy movement (Harris, October 22, 2011; Mann,
October 23, 2011; Slosson, May 2, 2012; Solnit, November 22,
2011). Yet police forces are becoming more—not less—
militarized, and are escalating their response to uprisings
accordingly (Balko, July 7, 2013). In this light, King seems
hardly even to have been gambling in anticipating the
brutality of “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Alabama (Ginsburg,
August 12, 2013). But he and other so-called nonviolent
activists are also relying on a falsely dichotomous reaction
in the wider public, casting the police as perpetrators and
the protesters who provoked them as innocent. Even if left
implicit, Ginsburg’s point seems unmistakable: While few
might deny that police are principally culpable for
brutality against peaceful demonstrations, a tactical
reliance on such violence constitutes its own culpability—
that the police may be foolish and even criminal to don the
45
affect and the effect of imperial storm troopers does not
excuse activists for the manipulation that produces their
response.
Other approaches that seek public appeal are those of
the “open rescue” and undercover video. Maxwell Schnurer
(2004) points to a series of tactics in mainstream discourse
about animals that 1) objectify animals as cuts of meat to
be consumed, just as some parts of women’s bodies are
isolated and eroticized, and 2) distance and obscure
suffering animals from the humans who consume them. Karen
Davis (2004) argues that even when videotaped, ALF actions
to rescue abused animals retain anonymity and this distance:
All rescues are shot at a long-distance angle. Therescuers look and act like remote, stylized figures rather than flesh-and-blood people, and the animals, including birds and fish, are so far away that it is difficult to be sure what kinds ofbirds, for example, are being taken out of the cages. (Davis, 2004, pp. 206-207)
46
In sharp contrast, open rescues show both rescuers and
rescued as individuals, with faces and eyes (Davis, 2004).
Undercover investigations, now banned in several states
(Oppel, April 6, 2013), have produced videos documenting
animal cruelty, that are alleged “to have been doctored or
manipulated” (Zahniser, August 22, 2012), and that have
prodded legislators, regulators, and prosecutors to take
action (Oppel; Zahniser).
Open rescuers also critique anonymous rescuers’ actions
as insufficient:
On accepting the Animal Rights Hall of Fame award at the 2003 animal rights conference in Los Angeles, Rod Coronado said that when you save 50 dogs from a laboratory, saving their lives is all that matters. But one might note that people will make money from catching or breeding 50 dogs who will replace those saved. What do we say to the replacements—“Sorry, the lives of those we rescuedmattered more than yours”? (Dawn, 2004)
The argument, as Karen Dawn (2004) puts it, is that “if
an action gets ‘good’ press, it can influence public opinion
47
and therefore save far more animals in the long run” by
influencing policy (p. 215). Policy has been influenced. In
California, for example, while enforcement may be uneven and
some bans continue to be challenged, a proposition
increasing chicken cage size and laws banning foie gras and
shark fins have passed (Egelko, April 27, 2013; Human
Society of the United States, September 29, 2004; Institute
of Governmental Studies, 2012; Onishi, August 12, 2012).
These are, arguably, modest and incremental achievements.
However, one would assume that each is likely of greater
benefit than any single direct action that lacks a public
relations benefit.
Still, ALF actions do not always play out in the media
as one might expect. Dawn (2004) notes that coverage of an
attack on a San Francisco foie gras chef, while garnering
sympathy for the chef, nonetheless raised the issue of
cruelty of force feeding ducks and geese. She quotes several
letters to the editor including one which read:
48
The animal-rights groups are wrong to vandalize orthreaten chefs but, unfortunately, it seems to have worked—front page of The Chronicle. It is too bad that the simple truth about factory farms isn’t enough to get a front-page story. . . . (Unknown, quoted in Dawn, 2004, p. 218)
Writing of a dubious mink farm release—many of the mink
were re-captured, shot by neighbors, or run over—Dawn (2004)
then questions “whether there is really such a thing as
negative press on animal rights issues at this stage of our
movement” and sees “the huge amount of coverage” as
signifying a continued vitality to the anti-fur movement
(Dawn, 2004, p. 221).
Of Multiple Means
There are those who can see the horrors of vivisection and fur farming, the oil-covered shorelines and the clearcut mountainsides, and plod forward through the much of lobbying, petitioning, letter writing, politicking and protesting. This ’zine is not for them. This ’zineis for every young man and woman who has cried forthe blood of the earth, stood in shock, open-mounted at the callousness and cruelty some can inflict on the most peaceful of our fellow creations, the Animal People. For all who have
49
ever felt helpless against an enemy a thousand times larger than themselves. For those who cannotlive with the pain of knowing that every morning the laboratory lights are turned on, the chainsawsare oiled and sharpened, the gas chambers are wheeled out to the pelting barns, and the slaughter is continuing—this is for you, so that you may never feel alone again, so that you may see that though we may never achieve total victoryin our lifetimes, sometimes victory and freedom isours simply by fighting, by breaking our own chains before we can break the chains of others (Western Wildlife Unit, 2004, pp. 191-192)
Possibly outside the strategic or tactical thinking of
most activists is a recognition by some that both direct and
indirect action may contribute to movement outcomes
(Coronado, 2004; Friedrich, 2004; jones, 2004; Watson,
2004). Strategizing for animal liberationists, pattrice
jones states flatly that,
Neither is entirely effective without the other. Analysis of other social movements in history suggests that our best bet will be a strategy thatincludes a diversity of direct action tactics in coordination with a diversity of other types of tactics.” (jones, 2004, p. 139)
50
Friedrich (2004) adds that “[i]n the same way that John
Brown made William Jennings Bryan respectable, ALF
activities make the rest of the movement respectable” (p.
257). Rod Coronado (2004) critiques what he claims is a one-
sided account of Gandhi’s achievements:
Gandhi’s principles of nonviolence formed merely one strategy employed by India’s independence struggle, yet they are often cited as a successfulexample of the power of nonviolence. Only someone unfamiliar with India’s history would believe passive nonviolence to be solely responsible for India’s independence. Such arguments fail to recognize the value illegal direct action plays ina liberation struggle. They also perpetuate the myth that as long as we adhere to our moral and ethical principles, we will be rewarded. In doing so, proponents of passive nonviolence exercise a choice of tactics that is the product of privilegeand only available to those in the First World. This privilege itself is the product of the violence committed to create the so-called “liberties” the United States government promotes. . . . In his autobiography, Nelson Mandela aptly states, “It is not the oppressed whodetermine the means of resistance, but the oppressor.” (Coronado, 2004, p. 182)
51
Indeed, one might ask, if passive—or as advocates
prefer to call it, “strategic”—nonviolence is in fact so
effective, if in fact “[r]eason has to be strengthened by
suffering and suffering opens the eyes to understanding”
(Wicklund, 2004, p. 243), why has it not worked for the
animals led to slaughter or experimented upon in labs or
skinned alive? As Bruce Friedrich (2004) puts it, “[i]t is
hard to fathom the animals doing any more suffering than
they already have, but public empathy has yet to develop”
(p. 255). Indeed, Friedrich argues that Gandhi did not need
public empathy to develop, that he already had the advantage
of “massive global popular opinion” (p. 255).
Some direct activists simply point to their results.
Coronado (2004) points to closed labs, destroyed property,
animal releases, and economic sabotage:
Even targeted vivisectors themselves—such as thoseat the University of Arizona, where a 1989 ALF raid torched two research laboratories and rescued1,200 animals—admit to the effectiveness of direct
52
action. Following the action, animal research at the university fell under greater scrutiny. Vivisectors reduced the number of animals sacrificed in redundant experiments and were forced to address charges of animal abuse claimed by the ALF. All of these achievements were accomplished without harm. And we’re supposed to believe these concrete victories to be counterproductive to the goals of animal liberation? (Coronado, 2004, p. 179)
Action Labeled as Terrorism
Paul Watson (2004) points to the arbitrariness of the
label terrorism and argues that in contrast to anti-abortion
activists and jihadis, the label cannot apply to “[a]nimal
rights activists and environmentalists [who] have not been
implicated in a single murder or a conspiracy to commit a
murder” (p. 281). Paul Sorenson (2011) points out that the
original meaning of the term referred to state violence
against civilians, as in the French Revolution, as well as
to the more recent usage in reference to non-state actors
such as al Qaeda, and concurs that nothing similar is present
53
in the animal rights movement. Multiple U.S. presidential
administrations, Congress, federal agencies, and state
legislatures, acting at the behest of the animal-using
industry, have seen it differently (Best, 2004; Black &
Black, 2004). Whether direct or indirect, whether undercover
or open, any action that physically or economically injures
an “animal enterprise” may now apparently be prosecuted
under the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA),
which replaced and broadened provisions of the already
onerous Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) (Sheppard,
December 21, 2011):
In March 2006, [Lauren] Gazzola was found guilty of six felony charges, including stalking and conspiracy to violate AEPA. Gazzola was never personally involved in any illegal protest, she says—just in writing and speaking about protest actions, and posting accounts from people who did engage in those acts. Nor were the other five SHACactivists charged with actually committing violentacts. But government prosecutors made it clear that they believed they were shutting down the activities of a group that promoted terrorist acts. (Sheppard, December 21, 2011)
54
However draconian one may view the AETA, it has, at
least if stories on the North American Animal Liberation
Press Office (n.d.) web site are to be believed, already
failed to halt numerous actions against animal enterprises.
Further, it seems to have failed to dissuade a Compassion
Over Killing undercover investigation that led to the
closing of a slaughterhouse in California’s Central Valley
(Zahniser, August 22, 2012) or a series of undercover
investigations reported in a New York Times story on so-called
“Ag-Gag” legislation (Oppel, April 6, 2013). What the act
might do, by lumping all animal rights actions together as
criminal or even as “terrorist,” is to blur the perceived
boundary between indirect and direct actions. Activists
already implicated in indirect actions will have less reason
to refrain from direct actions.
55
CONCLUSION
This essay, an interim work completed at the beginning
of a renewed exploration of social change theories, has
offered little in the way of solutions. Rather, the
available means to the goal of a radically egalitarian
society are exposed as insufficient and problematic. The
problem of displacing elites who are increasing their
abilities to employ coercive violence to prevent urgently
needed change remains a problem. The problem of persuading a
critical mass of the world population to adopt radical
egalitarianism remains a problem—and this latter problem
seems utterly unaddressed in the approaches I have explored
in this essay.
Finally, the problems of climate change and
overpopulation remain serious problems. Frank Fenner, a
leading researcher in defeating the small pox virus and in
“suppress[ing] wild rabbit populations on farming land in
56
southeastern Australia” told a reporter for the Australian
that he believes humans will be extinct within 100 years
(Jones, June 16, 2010). Assuming he is right, that does not
mean we have 100 years to solve the problem. Rather, the
tipping point might come far sooner, leading to an
environmental catastrophe of a kind that humans have never
experienced and which may be beyond our capacity to adapt to
(Boxall, June 7, 2012).
These are urgent problems. And while it would be one
thing if the only question was about what a new system of
social organization would look like, we lack even a
plausible plan for bringing it about.
References
Adams, C. J. (1991). Ecofeminism and the eating of animals. Hypatia, 6(1), 125-145.
Alinsky, S. (1971/1989). Rules for radicals: A pragmatic primer for realistic radicals. New York: Vintage.
Animal Liberation Front. (2004a). Animal Liberation Front guidelines. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.),
57
Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (p. 8). New York: Lantern.
Animal Liberation Front. (2004b). Introducing the Animal Liberation Front. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.),Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 7-8). New York: Lantern.
Animal Liberation Front. (2013, August 30). "Animal Liberation Front floods house of fur auction VP. North American Animal Liberation Press Office. Retrieved from https://animalliberationpressoffice.org/NAALPO/2013/08/30/animal-liberation-front-floods-house-of-fur-auction-vp/
Associated Press. (2013, May 25). Millions march against GM crops. Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/26/millions-march-against-monsanto
Balko, R. (2013, July 7). “Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book”: The new warrior cop is out of control.Salon. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2013/ 07/07/%e2%80%9cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/
Battiste, M. (2008). Research ethics for protecting indigenous knowledge and heritage: Institutional and researcher responsibilities. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 497-509). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Becker, A. & Schulz, G. W. (2011, December 21). Local policestockpile high-tech, combat-ready gear. Center for Investigative Reporting. Retrieved from
58
http://cironline.org/reports/local-police-stockpile-high-tech-combat-ready-gear-2913
Benderev, C. (2013, August 10). When power goes to your head, it may shut out your heart. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2013/08/10/ 210686255/a-sense-of-power-can-do-a-number-on-your-brain
Benfell, D. (2009, March 30). PETA is a lousy god. Retrievedfrom https://disunitedstates.org/?p=1613
Benfell, D. (2012, March 15). We “need to know how it works.” Retrieved from https://parts-unknown.org/wp/2012/03/15/we-need-to-know-how-it-works/
Benfell, D. (2012, December 7). The inevitability of speciesism. Retrieved from https://parts-unknown.org/wp/2012/12/07/the-inevitability-of-speciesism/
Benfell, D. (2013, March 6). “We have found the enemy, and he is us” – and our system of social organization. Retrieved from https://parts-unknown.org/wp/2013/03/06/we-have-found-the-enemy-and-he-is-us-and-our-system-of-social-organization/
Benfell, D. (2013, April 11). Towards sustainability. Retrieved from https://parts-unknown.org/wp/2013/04/11/towards-sustainability/
Benfell, D. (2013, August 19). Big Brother wants you to be afraid. Retrieved from https://disunitedstates.org/?p=5806
59
Bernanke, B. S. (2007, February 6). The level and distribution of economic well-being. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Retrieved from http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20070206a.htm
Bernstein, M. (2004). Legitimizing liberation. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 93-105). New York: Lantern.
Best, S. & Nocella, A. J., II (2004). Introduction: behind the mask: Uncovering the Animal Liberation Front. In S.Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 9-63). New York: Lantern.
Biron, C. L. (2013, March 5). U.S. 'stalling' could force acceptance of onerous TPP. InterPress Service. Retrieved from http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/u-s-stalling-could-force-acceptance-of-onerous-tpp/
Biron, C. L. (2013, March 28). Subsidies play “significant role” in climate change, IMF says. InterPress Service. Retrieved from http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/ subsidies-play-significant-role-in-climate-change-imf-says/
Black, J. & Black, J. (2004). The rhetorical "terrorist": Implications of the USA Patriot Act for animal liberation. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 288-299). New York: Lantern.
Bodley, J. H. (2008). Victims of progress (5th ed.). Lanham, MD:AltaMira.
60
Boxall, B. (2012, June 7). Earth may be near tipping point, scientists warn. Los Angelese Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/07/local/la-me-0607-global-tipping-20120607
Bullard, R. D., Mohai, P., Saha, R., & Wright, B. (2007, March). Toxic wastes and race at twenty: 1987-2007. United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries.Retrieved fromhttp://www.ejnet.org/ej/twart.pdf
Burroughs, W. J. (2008). Climate change in prehistory: The end of the reign of chaos. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Bybee, R. (2012, September 12). Obama's double game on outsourcing. Dollars and Sense. Retrieved from http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2012/0912bybee.html
Bybee, R. (2013, February 12). Yes, he did: Obama plugged Trans-Pacific Partnership while touting 'middle class' growth. In These Times. Retrieved from http://inthesetimes.com/article/14571/will_president_obama_push_an_offshoring_agenda_in_sotu/
Cannella, G. S. & Manuelito, K. D. (2008). Feminisms from unthought locations: Indigenous worldviews, marginalized feminisms, and revisioning an anticolonialsocial science. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T.Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 45-59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carter, Z. (2012, June 13). Obama trade document leaked, revealing new corporate powers and broken campaign promises. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html
61
Center for Biological Diversity. (n.d.). Human population: Akey factor in species extinction. Retrieved from http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/ overpopulation/index
Chestney, N. (2012, September 27). 100 million to die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/27/us-climate-inaction-idUSBRE88Q0ZJ20120927
Chomsky, N. (1969/2005). Objectivity and liberal scholarship. In B. Pateman (Ed.), Chomsky on Anarchism (pp. 11-100). Edinburgh: AK.
Chomsky, N. (1976/2005). The relevance of anarcho-syndicalism [Interview by P. Jay]. In B. Pateman (Ed.),Chomsky on Anarchism (pp. 133-148). Edinburgh: AK.
Clark, B. & York, R. (2008). Rifts and shifts: Getting to the root of environmental crises. Monthly Review, 60(6). Retrieved from http://monthlyreview.org/2008/11/01/rifts-and-shifts-getting-to-the-root-of-environmental-crises
Code, L. (1991). What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Cole, M. & Morgan, K. (2011). Veganism contra speciesism: Beyond debate. Brock Review, 12(1), 144-163.
Collins, P. H. (1990/2010). Black feminist thought in the matrix of domination. In C. Lemert (Ed.), Social theory: Themulticultural and classic readings (4th ed., pp. 541-552). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Coronado, R. (2004). Direct actions speak louder than words.In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom
62
fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 178-184). NewYork: Lantern.
Davis, K. (2004). Open rescues: Putting a face on the rescuers and on the rescued. In S. Best & A. J. NocellaII (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 202-212). New York: Lantern.
Dawn, K. (2004). From the front line to the front page — an analysis of ALF media coverage. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on theliberation of animals (pp. 213-228). New York: Lantern.
Democracy Now! (2011, December 8a). Critics: Rich polluters—including U.S.—should face sanctions for rejecting binding emissions cuts. Retrieved from http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/8/critics_rich_polluters_including_us_should
Democracy Now! (2011, December 8b). Entrepreneur: Capitalismwill save world from climate crisis to preserve marketsfor iPads, Coke. Retrieved from http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/8/entrepreneur_capitalism_will_save_world_from
Democracy Now! (2011, December 8c). Wanjira Maathai: U.S. should "shape up or get out" at U.N. climate talks. Retrieved from http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/8/wanjira_maathai_us_should_shape_up
Democracy Now! (2012, December 4). In Doha, lead U.S. negotiator plays down expectations of climate action inObama's second term. Retrieved from http://www.democracynow.org/2012/12/4/in_doha_lead_us_negotiator_plays
63
Democracy Now! (2013, February 15). From Dorner to Waco to MOVE bombing: A look at growing militarization of domestic policing. Retrieved from http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/15/from_dorner_to_waco_to_move
Denys, P. (2011). Animals and women as meat. Brock Review, 12(1), 44-50.
Deutschewelle. (2012, May 8). Mankind must change ways to survive, report says. Retrieved from http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15935446,00.html
Diamond, J. (1999). Guns, germs and steel: The fates of human societies.New York: W. W. Norton.
DuRand, C. (2013, April 12). Trans-Pacific Partnership: Freetrade vs. democracy. Center for International Policy Americas Program. Retrieved from http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/9355
Egelko, B. (2013, April 27). Shark fin ban stands while opponents challenge law. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/ Shark-fin-ban-stands-while-opponents-challenge-law-4765894.php
Eisler, R. (1995). The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future. New York: HarperSanFrancisco.
Elliott, J. (2011, December 24). How the feds fueled the militarization of police. Salon. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2011/12/24/ how_the_feds_fueled_the_militarization_of_police/
Faludi, S. (2006). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women, 15th anniversary ed. New York: Three Rivers.
64
Fine, M., Tuck, E., & Zeller-Berkman, S. (2008). Do you believe in Geneva? Methods and ethics t the global-local nexus. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 157-180). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fotheringham, A. (2013, May 12). 27% of Spaniards are out ofwork. Yet in one town everyone has a job. Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/ news/world/europe/27-of-spaniards-are-out-of-work-yet-in-one-town-everyone-has-a-job-8612920.html
Friedrich, B. G. (2004). Defending agitation and the ALF. InS. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 252-262). NewYork: Lantern.
Fromm, E. (1956/2010). The sane society. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Gaard, G. (2002). Vegetarian ecofeminism: A review essay. Frontiers, 23(3), 117-146.
Gaard, G. (2011). Ecofeminism revisited: Rejecting essentialism and re-placing species in a material feminist environmentalism. Feminist Formations, 23(2), 26-53.
Gallagher, K. P. (2013, March 6). Don’t trade away financialstability in Trans-Pacific Partnership. Financial Times. Retrieved from http://blogs.ft.com/ economistsforum/2013/03/dont-trade-away-financial-stability-in-trans-pacific-partnership/
Gillespie, K. (2011). How happy is your meat?: Confronting (dis)connectedness in the ‘alternative’ meat industry. Brock Review, 12(1), 100-128.
65
Gillis, J. (2011, December 24). Harsh political reality slows climate studies despite extreme year. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/ 25/science/earth/climate-scientists-hampered-in-study-of-2011-extremes.html
Ginsberg, B. (2013, August 12). Why violence works. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Violence-Works/140951/
Giroux, H. A. (2013, September 10). Intellectuals as subjects and objects of violence. Truthout. Retrieved from http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18704-intellectuals-as-subjects-and-objects-of-violence
Giroux, H. A. & Giroux, S. S. (2008). Challenging neoliberalism's new world order: The promise of critical pedagogy. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L.T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 181-189). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glasser, C. L. (2011). Tied oppressions: An analysis of how sexist imagery reinforces speciesist sentiment. Brock Review, 12(1), 51-68.
Goodman, A. (2011, December 13). Climate apartheid. Truthdig.Retrieved from http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/climate_apartheid_20111213/
Goldman, E. (1972/1998). Address to the International Working Men's Association Congress. In A. K. Shulman (Ed.), Red Emma speaks: An Emma Goldman reader (3rd ed., pp.421-431). New York: Humanity.
Gordon, U. (2008). Anarchy alive! Anti-authoritarian politics from practice to theory. London: Pluto.
66
Grande, S. (2008). Red pedagogy: The un-methodology. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 233-254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hamburger, T., Leonnig, C. D., & Goldfarb, Z. A. (2012, July9). Obama's record on outsourcing draws criticism from the left. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-record-on-outsourcing-draws-criticism-from-the-left/2012/07/09/gJQAljJCZW_story.html
Harris, P. (2011, October 22). Police brutality charges sweep across the US. Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/22/police-brutality-charges-us
Hatton, E. (2013, January 26). The rise of the permanent temp economy. New York Times. Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/the-rise-of-the-permanent-temp-economy/
Hayes, C. (2012). Twilight of the elites: America after meritocracy. New York: Crown.
Humane Society of the United States. (2004, September 29). Schwarzenegger terminates foie gras in California; HSUSurges consumers nationwide to reject the inhumane 'delicacy'. IndyBay. Retrieved from https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/09/ 30/16970781.php
Institute of Governmental Studies. (2012). Proposition 2. University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/elections/proposition-2
Jacobson, B. (2012, March 18). Why war isn't inevitable: A science writer studies the secret to peaceful
67
societies. Alternet. Retrieved from http://www.alternet.org/story/154508/why_war_isn%27t_inevitable%3A_a_science_writer_studies_the_secret_to_peaceful_societies
Jaramillo, N. & McLaren, P. (2008). Rethinking critical pedagogy: Socialismo nepantla and the specter of Che. In N.K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 191-210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johannesen, R. L. (2002). Ethics in human communication (5th ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Jones, C. (2010, June 16). Frank Fenner sees no hope for humans. Australian. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/frank-fenner-sees-no-hope-for-humans/story-e6frgcjx-1225880091722
jones, p. (2004). Mothers with monkeywrenches: Feminist imperatives and the ALF. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 137-156). New York: Lantern.
Karabell, Z. (2012, May 4). Monthly jobs numbers don't matter. Daily Beast. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/04/the-monthly-jobs-numbers-don-t-matter.html
Kasser, T., Cohn, S., Kanner, A. D., & Ryan, R. M. (2007). Some costs of American corporate capitalism: A psychological exploration of value and goal conflicts. Psychological Inquiry, 38(1), 1-22.
Kent, G. (2011). Ending hunger worldwide. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
68
Kerber, L. K. (2004). Prescribing the pill: The republican mother and the woman citizen: Contradictions and choices in revolutionary America. In L. K. Kerber & J. S. De Hart (Eds.), Women's America: Refocusing the Past (6th ed., pp. 119-127). New York: Oxford University.
Kincheloe, J. L. & Steinberg, S. R. (2008). Indigenous knowledges in education: Complexities, dangers and prfound benefits. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 135-156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kitcher, P. (2011). The ethical project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Klare, M. (2013, April 21). The coming global explosion. TomDispatch. Retrieved from http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175690/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_the_coming_global_explosion/
Korten, D. (2008). After the meltdown: Economic redesign forthe 21st century. Tikkun 23(6), 33. Retrieved from http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/Korten-economic-redesign-for-21st
Kropotkin, P. (1898/1997). The state: Its historic role (V. Richards,trans.). London: Freedom Press.
Kropotkin, P. (1902/2006). Mutual aid: A factor of evolution. Mineola, NY: Dover.
Labedz, L. & Ryan, A. (1999). Anarchism. In A. Bullock & S. Trombley, Eds., The Norton dictionary of modern thought (2nd rev. ed., p. 30). New York: W. W. Norton.
Ladson-Billings, G. & Donnor, J. K. (2008). Waiting for the call: The moral activist role of critical race theory scholarship. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T.
69
Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 61-83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Leahy, S. (2013, April 28). Leave it in the ground, climate activists demand. InterPress Service. Retrieved from http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/04/leave-it-in-the-ground-climate-activists-demand/
Lenski, G. (1966). Power and privilege: A theory of social stratification. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Levitz, D. (2011, December 11). Climate delegates reach modest compromise at Durban. Deutschewelle. Retrieved from http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/ 0,,15593531,00.html
Livestock Environment and Development Initiative. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Mann, T. (2011, October 23). The Occupy movement adds volumeto police brutality complaints. Atlantic Wire. Retrieved from http://www.theatlanticwire.com/ national/2011/10/occupy-movement-adds-volume-police-brutality-complaints/44012/
Marsh, J. (2013, May 24). Claws come out as PETA goes after anonymous online commenters for shelter kill claims. New York Post. Retrieved from http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/claws_come_kills_shelter_peta_goes_rkK9NKluuT53huumRp4L5K
Marshall, A. G. (2012, November 25). Why so secretive? The Trans-Pacific Partnership as global coup. Truthout. Retrieved from http://truth-out.org/news/item/12934-why-so-secretive?-the-trans-pacific-partnership-as-global-coup
70
McCaslin, W. D. & Breton, D. C. (2008). Justice as healing: Going outside the colonizers' cage. In N. K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 511-529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McCurry, J. (2012, January 9). Japan to release Australian activists who boarded whaling ship. Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/10/ japan-release-australian-activists-whaling-ship
McDaniel, C. N. & Borton, D. N. (2002). Increased human energy use causes biological diversity loss and undermines prospects for sustainability. BioScience 52(10), 929-936. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0929:IHEUCB]2.0.CO;2
MercoPress. (2012, December 19), US court tells Sea Shepherdto stay away from Japan's whaling fleet in Southern Ocean. Retrieved from http://en.mercopress.com/2012/12/19/us-court-tells-sea-shepherd-to-stay-away-from-japan-s-whaling-fleet-in-southern-ocean
Meyer, M. A. (2008). Indigenous and authentic: Hawaiian epistemology and the triangulation of meaning. In N. K.Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 217-232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mills, C. W. (1956/2000). The power elite. New York: Oxford University.
Minnich, E. K. (2005). Transforming knowledge (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Temple University.
Moghadam, V.M. (2013). Chapter 1: Introduction and overview.In Globalization and social movements: Islamism, feminism, and the
71
global justice movement (2nd ed., pp. 1-29). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Molland, N. (2004). Thirty years of direct action. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 67-74). New York: Lantern.
Mondragon Corporation. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/language/en-US/ENG.aspx
Morey, J. (2013, May 14). U.S. military 'power grab' goes into effect. Long Island Press. Retrieved from http://www.longislandpress.com/2013/05/14/u-s-military-power-grab-goes-into-effect/
Morris, B. (1993). Bakunin: The philosophy of freedom. Montréal: Black Rose.
Moyer, B. (with McAllister, J., Finley, M. L., & Soifer, S.,2001). Doing democracy: The MAP model for organizing social movements. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society.
Muller, J. Z. (2013, March/April). Capitalism and inequality: What the right and the left get wrong. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/ articles/138844/jerry-z-muller/capitalism-and-inequality
North American Animal Liberation Press Office. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://animalliberationpressoffice.org/NAALPO/
Oelschlaeger, M. (1991). The idea of wilderness: From prehistory to the age of ecology. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
72
Onishi, N. (2012, August 12). Some in California skirt a banon foie gras. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/us/some-california-restaurants-skirt-foie-gras-ban.html
Oppel, R. A., Jr. (2013, April 6). Taping of farm cruelty isbecoming the crime. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/us/taping-of-farm-cruelty-is-becoming-the-crime.html
Oskamp, S. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity? How can psychology help? American Psychologist, 55(5), 496-508. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.496
Outwater, A. (1996). Water: A natural history. New York: Basic.
Paley, D. (2013, April 17). Tremendous pharmaceutical profits or totally protected plunder? Center for International Policy Americas Program. Retrieved from http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/9369
Proudhon, P-J. (1840/2007). What is property? Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University.
Regan, T. (2004). How to justify violence. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 231-236). New York: Lantern.
Ritholtz, B. (2013, July 9). Economic inequality is not an accident, it was created. Big Picture. Retrieved from http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/07/economic-inequality-is-not-an-accident-it-was-created/
Rohmann, C. (1999). A world of ideas: A dictionary of important theories, concepts, beliefs, and thinkers. New York: Ballantine.
Said, E. W. (1994). Culture and imperialism. New York: Vintage.
73
Saavedra, C. M. & Nymark, E. D. (2008). Borderland-mestizaje feminism. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith(Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 255-276). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneier, B. (2013, August 13). [Review of the book Rise of theWarrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces, by R. Balko]. Schneier on Security. Retrieved from http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/ book_review_ris.html
Seldes, G. (1948/2009). 1000 Americans: The real rulers of the U.S.A. Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive.
Sheppard, K. (2011, December 21). Are animal rights activists terrorists? Mother Jones. Retrieved from http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/12/are-animal-rights-activists-terrorists
Singer, P. & Dawn, K. (2004, July 25). Echoes of Abu Ghraib in chicken slaughterhouse. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/25/opinion/oe-singer25
Slater, P. (2009). The chrysalis effect: The metamorphosis of global culture. Eastbourne, UK: Sussex.
Smith, Y. (2013, June 19). More Obama Administration secrecy: Rep. Grayson can't discuss classified Trans-Pacific Partnership draft. Naked Capitalism. Retrieved from http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/06/more-obama-administration-secrecy-rep-grayson-sees-and-cant-discuss-classified-trans-pacific-trade-agreement-draft.html
Socolow, R., Rosenbaum, T., Korb, L. J., Eden, L., Ewing, R., Glaser, A., . . ., Wilson, E. J. (2013, January
74
14). An open letter to President Obama: The time on theDoomsday Clock is five minutes to midnight. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved from http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/open-letter-to-president-obama-the-time-the-doomsday-clock-five-minutes-to-midn
Solnit, R. (2011, November 22). You can crush the flowers, but you can't stop the spring. TomDispatch. Retrieved from http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175471/ tomgram%3A_rebecca_solnit%2C_ms._civil_society_v._mr._unaccountable/
Sorenson, J. (2011). The myth of "animal rights terrorism." Brock Review 12(1), 91-99.
Stallwood, K. (2004). A personal overview of direct action in the United Kingdom and the United States. In S. Best& A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 81-90). New York: Lantern.
Stamoulis, A. (2013, April 12). Seven reasons to fight the TPP. Center for International Policy Americas Program. Retrieved from http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/9349
Stiglitz, J. E. (2007). Making globalization work. New York: W. W. Norton.
Stonebanks, C. D. (2008). An Islamic perspective on knowledge, knowing, and methodology. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 293-321). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swadener, B. B. & Mutua, K. (2008). Decolonizing performances: Deconstructing the global postcolonial. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.),
75
Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 31-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Union of Concerned Scientists. (2000, August). Population – biodiversity linkage. Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/biodiversity/population-and-environment-series/population-biodiversity.html
Wallach, L. (2012, June 27). NAFTA on steroids. Nation. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/article/168627/nafta-steroids
Wallach, L. (2012, November 21). Can a "Dracula strategy" bring Trans-Pacific Partnership into the sunlight? Yes! Retrieved from http://www.yesmagazine.org/ new-economy/can-dracula-strategy-bring-trans-pacific-partnership-into-sunlight
Warren, K. J. & Cady, D. L. (1994). Feminism and peace: Seeing connections. Hypatia 9(2), 4-20.
Watson, P. (2004). ALF and ELF — Terrorism is as terrorism does. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 279-287). New York: Lantern.
Weaver, T. (2009). The ecology of globalization: The wolf atthe global door. Human Organization 68(4), 363-373.
Webb, R. (2004). Animal liberation—by "whatever means necessary." In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 75-80). New York: Lantern.
Weber, M. (1946/2010). What is politics? In C. Lemert (Ed.),Social theory: The multicultural and classic readings (4th ed., pp. 114-116). Boulder, CO: Westview.
76
Weber, M. (1978/2010). Class, status, party. In C. Lemert (Ed.), Social theory: The multicultural and classic readings (4th ed., pp. 119-129). Boulder, CO: Westview.
West, C. (1990/2010). The new cultural politics of difference. In C. Lemert (Ed.), Social theory: The multiculturaland classic readings (4th ed., pp. 511-521). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Winerip, M. (2013, July 6). PETA finds itself on receiving end of others' anger. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/peta-finds-itself-on-receiving-end-of-others-anger.html
Winograd, N. J. (2013, April 2). Shocking photos: PETA's secret slaughter of kittens, puppies. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html
Wolf, N. (2012, December 21). The coming drone attack on America. Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/21/coming-drone-attack-america
Yourofsky, G. (2004). Abolition, liberation, freedom: Comingto a fur farm near you. In S. Best & A. J. Nocella II (Eds.), Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (pp. 128-136). New York: Lantern.
Zahniser, D. (2012, August 22). Central Valley slaughterhouse closed over inhumane treatment. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/ aug/22/local/la-me-0822-slaughterhouse-20120822
Zakaria, F. (2013, January/February). Can America be fixed? The new crisis of democracy. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved
77
from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/ articles/138474/fareed-zakaria/can-america-be-fixed
Zinn, H. (2005). A people’s history of the United States: 1492-present. New York: HarperPerennial.
Top Related