COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS  
  
  
  
                        INTRODUCTION:  
  
   Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about 
people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research,
some of the opponents (often known as "Antis") of the animal
rights movement also have mistaken ideas about AR activists
(ARAs) and their goals and organizations. This document is
intended to address those misapprehensions as fairly as 
possible.  
  
  
                THE "CULT" OF ANIMAL RIGHTS:  
  
   Many Antis view ARAs as near-mindless followers of a few  
charismatic leaders and/or texts. They believe that AR dogma   
is delivered to activists who then accept and follow it   
blindly. While there may be a grain of truth behind this idea,   
it is on the whole mistaken for two reasons. First, the AR  
movement has *no* leaders who command the obedience, or even   
the complete agreement, of most ARAs. Even small AR groups   
are rife with conflicting opinions and dissent; ask a group   
of twenty ARAs a question about a basic tenet of their beliefs  
and you will get at least five (and sometimes twenty) different  
answers.    
    
   The same kinds of factionalism and disagreement on theory  
and policy that plague grassroots movements in general can be  
found throughout the animal rights community. Every movement   
has people who lead, people who follow, and people who prefer   
to think and act as individuals. ARAs are no exception.  
  
  
            ANIMAL RIGHTS AS IRRATIONAL RELIGION:  
  
  
   It is tempting to believe that people who think  
differently are irrational; that they blindly follow dogma  
without a moment's thought to the logical issues raised by  
their beliefs and actions. The philosophy of animal rights  
is based on rational consideration of the world as humans  
perceive it, just like many other schools of thought. While  
there are some ARAs who prefer to think in slogans and who  
never doubt themselves, many of us spend vast amounts of  
time considering and reconsidering our positions and the  
reasons that underlie them. While some sleep the Sleep Of  
The Just, many others lie awake, thinking and worrying.  
From Peter Singer and Tom Regan to anonymous student  
activists, the animal rights movement is as much a rational  
undertaking as most other human endeavors. Our conclusions  
may be different from the mainstream, but our basic   
perceptions and analytical processes are essentially the  
same.  
  
  
                    THE ARA AS LUDDITE:  
  
   The opposition of ARAs to the use of animals in   
medical and other research is often taken by Antis to be   
symptomatic of a general "science phobia". This, along   
with the frequently expressed desire for a simpler,   
more natural lifestyle, leads many Antis to believe that   
the animal rights movement rejects science and technology,   
and if allowed to implement its goals, will plunge the   
world back into disease-ridden squalor. This is not the case.  
While some ARAs may be Luddites to some degree, most aren't.  
It must also be noted that many true Luddites fully support   
the exploitation of animals, albeit in a more traditional   
manner. There is no direct link between the two  
philosophies, any more than there is a direct link between  
political Conservatism and anti-government militias.   
  
               THE ARA AS CLUELESS URBANITE:  
  
   Another common myth about animal rights activists   
(that conflicts somewhat with the previously mentioned  
one) is that we are all city dwellers, with no real  
experience of the natural world, and possessing opinions  
that are shaped more by the movie "Bambi" than by reality.  
Every person, and every movement, has a unique mythology.  
For every ARA who believes that hunters are all cruel,  
mindless brutes, there is probably a hunter who thinks 
that (s)he is a carnivore, complete with fangs for  
killing. Both groups need to examine our mythologies.  

   Many ARAs live in rural areas, and many have direct   
experience with wildlife and with nature. Some of us have  
formal training in fields like biology and wildlife  
rehabilitation, and some of us are even former hunters.  
The 'city dweller' tag is a double-edged weapon, as many  
hunters also live in urban and suburban areas. If a hunter  
who drives to a wild area to hunt can be considered a  
repository of knowledge about nature, then an ARA who  
drives to wild areas to hike and camp deserves the same  
consideration.  
      
  
     ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCACY AS A LUCRATIVE BUSINESS:  
  
   Most of the larger AR organizations use direct mailings,  
both to raise funds and to get their message out to the  
largest possible number of people. Antis often look at  
the gross income generated by these mailings and proclaim  
that organizations like PETA and HSUS are 'in it for the  
money'. This view ignores the fact that most of the gross  
income from bulk mailings goes to pay for *more* bulk  
mailings, and that the actual funds raised are fairly  
modest. A few million dollars may seem like a lot, but  
it is a pittance when compared with the tens to hundreds  
of millions of dollars available to groups that are  
funded by industries that use animals or manufacture  
the tools and weapons used in animal research and hunting.  
Salaries in AR organizations are typically quite modest,  
and most activists are either completely unpaid, or make  
poverty-level wages. This is definitely not a wealthy  
movement.  
  
   A related criticism is that groups that advocate animal  
rights spend only a small portion of their available funds  
to help animals in shelters or on the streets. This tactic  
is effective - until one realizes that if money is spent  
on 'band-aid' approaches that don't attempt to change the  
status quo, then the status quo will continue, and more  
animals will suffer in the long run. Animal welfare  
groups do a good job of trying to help animals that are  
currently suffering. The mission of animal rights groups  
is to change society's attitudes about using animals, in  
the hope that future suffering will be greatly reduced.  
The two approaches are complementary, and AW and AR   
groups and activists each benefit from the presence of 
the other, despite our disagreements.  
                        
                THE ARA AS TERRORIST:  
  
   Everyone involved in the debate about animal rights  
is aware of the existence of the Animal Liberation  
Front, and of similar organizations that use destruction  
of property, and sometimes threats of violence against  
people who exploit animals, to achieve their ends. The  
media has also widely publicized the tactic, sometimes  
used by anti-fur activists, of splashing red paint on  
fur coats while people are wearing them. This has led to  
a general perception of the animal rights activist as  
someone who practices, or at least supports, violence.  
In fact, the typical ARA does nothing more menacing  
than write letters, debate online, or stand in a picket  
line holding a placard. Many animal rights activists  
are also *human* rights activists who abhor violence  
against any conscious being. The typical ARA is more  
likely to financially support human charities than  
the ALF. Even the Animal Liberation Front, while  
using extreme and controversial tactics, has expressed  
a commitment to avoid direct harm to human beings.  
ARAs as a group do not hate children, or people in  
general, and do not wish to grant animals more  
(or even comparable) rights than humans. We simply  
believe that animals have the right to be considered  
as more than a means to human ends. Having said that,
it would be inappropriate to ignore the attacks and
threats against people that have been used by a few
groups in an effort to stop animal testing and research.
While I fully understand the strong feelings that
these activists have against companies that use
sapient beings as mere means to make a profit, I
believe - along with many other activists - that the
kinds of threats and even physical assaults that have
been perpetrated in the name of AR are both wrong for
ethical reasons, and will ultimately prove to be harmful
to the struggle for an end to all laboratory testing
and research that harms sentient beings. Still, these
violent activists, while notorious, are nonetheless a
small minority. They do not represent us.
  
                 ARAs AS ELITISTS:  
  
   Animal rights activists are sometimes portrayed   
as well-off Weekend Warriors, with no concern for   
humanity's economic well-being, and no willingness   
to endure bodily discomfort or financial hardship   
for their cause. There are also regular accusations   
of intellectual elitism and disconnection from   
everyday concerns. Actually, the typical ARA works   
full time at a low or mid-level job, is involved   
with hands-on animal rescue work or care, and, as   
previously mentioned, is deeply concerned with   
matters of human rights and economic justice in   
addition to the issue of animal rights. ARAs are   
much more likely to be found in college towns and   
low-rent districts than in Hollywood or in expensive   
suburbs. AR activism as a career does not pay well   
for the vast majority of those who work at it   
professionally, and people who are activists in   
addition to holding "real" jobs are the rule, not   
the exception.       
  
                      CONCLUSION:  
  
   One of the basic tenets of conflict is "Know thy  
opponent." While it may be in the short-term interests  
of "Antis" to misrepresent animal rights activists,  
in the long term they would do well to learn more about  
how we really are, as opposed to how we are sometimes  
portrayed. Both sides in this debate need to engage in 
more genuine dialog, and less demonization.   
  






Copyright 1999-2002 by Michael Cerkowski
Reproduce freely, but do not modify.