What do you think?
Rate this book
Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism
When Richard Ryder coined the term 'speciesism' over two decades ago, the issue of animal rights was very much a minority concern that had associations with crankiness. Today, the animal rights movement is well-established across the globe and continues to gain momentum, with animal experimentation for medical research high on the agenda and very much in the news. This pioneering book - an historical survey of the relationship between humans and non-humans - paved the way for these developments. Revised, updated to include the movement's recent history and available in paperback for the first time, and now introducing Ryder's concept of 'painism', Animal Revolution is essential reading for anyone who cares about animals or humanity. Dr Richard D. Ryder is a psychologist, ethicist, historian and political campaigner. He is also a past chairman of the RSPCA. His other books include Victims of The Use of Animals in Research, The Political The Conquest of Speciesism and Animal Welfare and the Environment (editor). As Mellon Professor, he taught Animal Welfare at Tulane University.
- GenresActivism
300 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1989
1 person is currently reading
172 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
December 12, 2021
Richard Hood Jack Dudley Ryder is a British writer, psychologist, and animal rights advocate. In 1977 he became chairman of the RSPCA Council (until 1979), and helped to organize the first academic animal-rights conference in 1977 at Trinity College, Cambridge.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1989 book, “This book is not another catalog of cruelties… Rather, this is an attempt to look behind such phenomena to establish explanatory links, and to examine the changing relationships between human and nonhuman over the centuries, using history---chiefly British history---as a framework for new ideas. The positive side of this human-to-nonhuman relationship---that is to say its manifestation in the writings and campaigns of those concerned to improve the protection of nonhuman animals---is given priority… I do not claim to be writing a comprehensive or definitive history, but to be providing a few findings and observations…
“This book considers the history of humankind’s changing attitudes towards the other animals… I have tried to analyze causes and to provide arguments for further progress at a period when our relationships with other sentients and the environment generally are under scrutiny. Progress may not be a fashionable concept, yet I consider that some progress HAS been made towards a greater respect for nonhumans on our shared planet, and that the 1970s and 1980s have seen a quickening of this progress.” (Pg. 1-3)
He points out, “Jesus’ own attitude towards animals is simply not known… The New Testament hardly mentions the human-nonhuman relationship. But this silence may have been only because it was conceived largely as a ‘crisis document,’ written hurriedly to prepare people for Christ’s return, which was believed to be imminent… One possible reason for the early Christian failure to include nonhumans more emphatically within the circle of Christian love, its central principle, is that early Christianity had to overcome pagan religions which included the worship of animals…” (Pg. 31)
He recounts, “In the Victorian era… the endorsement of animal welfare by the Crown and aristocracy in an upward-looking and class-conscious society had the undoubtedly beneficial effect of making the cause fashionable and effective… But there were disadvantages… The aristocratic pastimes of hunting and shooting animals, for example, could not be included in the campaign for reform, their importance in the web of British upper-class ritual being too great. Some of the cruelties associated with horse-racing, game-fishing, meat-eating and agriculture also had to be tolerated…” (Pg. 100)
He notes, “Not only the RSPCA [Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals] but the whole animal welfare campaign had become bureaucratized; this gave it some durability but restricted its movement forward. What few sparks of inspiration there were came from independent individuals rather than from the organization.” (Pg. 148)
He suggests, “Darwinism appeared to imply … a lack of divine purpose. In doing so, it tended to undermine the assertion of a special relationship between man and God, as well as the biblical idea that God has given men dominion over the other species for man’s benefit… most importantly, Darwinism underlined the kinship between human and other animals… Darwinism was thus unveiled at a moment when some human beings had already begun to close the conceptual gap between the species. Nevertheless… there may have been a large number of people … who genuinely found it hard to conceive of themselves as a species of animal.” (Pg. 160-161)
He states, “The RSPCA certainly had supporters of bloodsports among its members. But such infiltration was not always deliberate, for the classes that led the RSPCA had many animal-lovers among their ranks, who nevertheless hunted or shot for sport… Furthermore, fox-hunting had the same ‘snob’ appeal as the RSPCA itself… to attack bloodsports, and fox-hunting in particular, struck at the core of the British class system.. When… in the 1960s, some members of the RSPCA challenged fox-hunting head-on, it was an occasion for much publicity.” (Pg. 188-189)
He explains, “Traditionally, the RSPCA had destroyed colonies of feral cats. But the so-called radicals at this time backed [the] alternative plan to neuter such cats and return them to site. After long resistance from the RSPCA establishment this approach eventually proved practicable and became RSPCA policy.” (Pg. 194-195)
He notes, “One of the most satisfactory campaigns of this period was that initiated by Greenpeace in 1978, when they went a ship to oppose the killing of grey and common seals by Norwegian sealers off the coast of Scotland… Greenpeace, by positioning its personnel near the seals, forced the British government to order the Norwegians to delay the use of their rifles.” (Pg. 199)
He records disagreements among the RSPCA: “It was perhaps because the row over finances had been seen as a clash between radicals and traditionalist that it has taken an unnecessarily long time to resolve. If the so-called traditionalists themselves had called for the inquiries in the first place the matter might have been over in a few weeks… To what extent was the ‘Great RSPCA Row’ of 1980-3 of any real significance? In some respects---incompetent management, almost incredible resistance to change, unionization, over-manning and bureaucratic lethargy---the society had been a microcosm of some of the problems of British society in general… The crippling internecine warfare withing the RSPA must have delighted many exploiters of animals who, a year or two earlier, had been worried by the society’s more incisive approach.” (Pg. 205-206)
He laments, “One of the saddest aspects of the worldwide campaign for animal protection has been the part played---or not played---by the veterinary profession. Widely seen by members of the public as being interested in the welfare of animals, with a few glorious exceptions vets have been distinguished by their absence from the great campaigns of the last two hundred years.” (Pg. 208)
He summarizes, “The twentieth century has seen a gradual change in attitude towards the treatment of wildlife, from a position of total exploitation, to anthropocentric conservation, through to a more genuine concern for the nonhumans themselves… there are three main differences between traditional conservation and modern wildlife protection. First, the former is for human benefit whereas the latter is for the sake of the wild creatures themselves. Secondly, conservation is concerned with saving species whereas protection includes care for individuals. Thirdly, protection aims to stop suffering as well as to protect life and habitat.” (Pg. 238-239)
He argues, “the scientist [performing research on animals] is often quick to point out that his or her nonhuman subjects are excellent biological models for human beings… Why then one may ask, if nonhumans are so PHYSICALLY similar, do they not share a MORAL similarity with humans? Scientists cannot have it both with ways; either nonhumans are poor models for humans or they ought to be treated with similar consideration and respect. This moral argument---the argument against speciesism---is rarely responded to by scientists, perhaps because there is no rational reply.” (Pg. 242)
He again summarizes, “The 1970s and 1980s have been hugely increasing public awareness of the sufferings of nonhumans in intensive husbandry, transportation and slaughter, and a swing against meat-eating…Although the food industry was showing signs of responding slowly to changing public attitudes it was still a force which impeded animal welfare reforms. At the end of the 1980s most farm animals in Britain continued to be kept in unnatural and distressing conditions conducive to disease, often fed upon the processed products of their own excreta and the bodies of other members of their species who had died of disease or injury.” (Pg. 270-271)
He says of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), “Almost certainly… the ALF is not the highly organized and centrally controlled organization that some people have claimed, nor is it funded lavishly by sinister or other sources, but quite meagerly and by very ordinary British people. It is, most probably, a collection of individuals acting independently driven by a sense of outrage and compassion, with no ulterior or party political motive and no particular flair for organization. The militants participating in protest marches have certainly attracted to their ranks a few of unusual appearance, some of them black-suited and punk-hairstyled, who call themselves anarchists. For many of these, one motive has appeared to be a need to find an identity and a sense of purpose in a society with high levels of unemployment which offered little hope to the young… For some, it is a passing phase, but for the others, the majority vegans and vegetarians, it is a passionately felt and rationally argued conviction…
“The very great amount of damage done to the property of animal exploiters over the years has put up insurance premiums and forced many to think seriously about the economic as well as moral implications of animal abuse.” (Pg. 274-275) Later, he adds, “at the time of this writing (1988), there is no authenticated case of death or serious injury being caused by humans or nonhumans by these militants. Hundreds of thousands of pounds’ worth of damage … has been done, but damage of any sort of living beings has been remarkably slight. On the other hand, animal campaigners HAVE been killed.” (Pg. 287)
He acknowledges, “When an issue moves in America it certainly seems to move faster and to get results far quicker than it does in conservative and cynical Britain, where our ideas have led the way but our achievements have been so limited. Perhaps Americans enjoy change, but the British do not.” (Pg. 306)
He suggests, “Gradually, more evidence accrues to suggest that nonhumans are conscious and feel pain… Whatever are the CAUSES of consciousness, its moral importance is clearly paramount. It matters not if an animal, whether human or nonhuman, is intelligent or communicative, or has an immortal soul. All that matters is that it is conscious: in particular that it can be conscious of pain and pleasure. This should be the bedrock of our morality. Pain is pain regardless of the species that is suffering it.” (Pg. 325-326)
He explains, “the word ‘rights’ … seems to me to be synthetic and unconvincing---whether applied in the human case or otherwise. This is one reason why I coined the word ‘speciesism’ in 1970… Speciesism is, I suppose, a compromise word… It describes the doer’s negative attitude and actions, rather than his or her positive qualities. It denotes… the exploitation, oppression and cruel injustice which flow from this prejudice.” (Pg. 328)
He concludes, “The absurdity and exaggeration of the traditional excuses for speciesism---that nonhumans feel no pain, that God created them for human use, that they have no souls or that the benefits of their exploitation are overwhelmingly necessary---suggest very strongly that humankind often, perhaps always, feels guilt over its speciesism. None of the excuses for speciesism are rationally convincing… gradually, politicians have taken … the public’s environmental concerns and animal protection is being seen, increasingly, as a major part of the ‘green’ movement… People who are cruel to nonhumans are not all wicked; most are just unthinking. Those of us who seek change must not resort to hatred or violence, but press on with our campaign to educate and legislate. We want people to open their eyes and to see the other animals as they really are---our kindred and our potential friends with whom we share a brief period of consciousness upon this planet.” (Pg. 336)
This book will be of great interest to those studying animal rights, animal welfare, and related issues.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1989 book, “This book is not another catalog of cruelties… Rather, this is an attempt to look behind such phenomena to establish explanatory links, and to examine the changing relationships between human and nonhuman over the centuries, using history---chiefly British history---as a framework for new ideas. The positive side of this human-to-nonhuman relationship---that is to say its manifestation in the writings and campaigns of those concerned to improve the protection of nonhuman animals---is given priority… I do not claim to be writing a comprehensive or definitive history, but to be providing a few findings and observations…
“This book considers the history of humankind’s changing attitudes towards the other animals… I have tried to analyze causes and to provide arguments for further progress at a period when our relationships with other sentients and the environment generally are under scrutiny. Progress may not be a fashionable concept, yet I consider that some progress HAS been made towards a greater respect for nonhumans on our shared planet, and that the 1970s and 1980s have seen a quickening of this progress.” (Pg. 1-3)
He points out, “Jesus’ own attitude towards animals is simply not known… The New Testament hardly mentions the human-nonhuman relationship. But this silence may have been only because it was conceived largely as a ‘crisis document,’ written hurriedly to prepare people for Christ’s return, which was believed to be imminent… One possible reason for the early Christian failure to include nonhumans more emphatically within the circle of Christian love, its central principle, is that early Christianity had to overcome pagan religions which included the worship of animals…” (Pg. 31)
He recounts, “In the Victorian era… the endorsement of animal welfare by the Crown and aristocracy in an upward-looking and class-conscious society had the undoubtedly beneficial effect of making the cause fashionable and effective… But there were disadvantages… The aristocratic pastimes of hunting and shooting animals, for example, could not be included in the campaign for reform, their importance in the web of British upper-class ritual being too great. Some of the cruelties associated with horse-racing, game-fishing, meat-eating and agriculture also had to be tolerated…” (Pg. 100)
He notes, “Not only the RSPCA [Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals] but the whole animal welfare campaign had become bureaucratized; this gave it some durability but restricted its movement forward. What few sparks of inspiration there were came from independent individuals rather than from the organization.” (Pg. 148)
He suggests, “Darwinism appeared to imply … a lack of divine purpose. In doing so, it tended to undermine the assertion of a special relationship between man and God, as well as the biblical idea that God has given men dominion over the other species for man’s benefit… most importantly, Darwinism underlined the kinship between human and other animals… Darwinism was thus unveiled at a moment when some human beings had already begun to close the conceptual gap between the species. Nevertheless… there may have been a large number of people … who genuinely found it hard to conceive of themselves as a species of animal.” (Pg. 160-161)
He states, “The RSPCA certainly had supporters of bloodsports among its members. But such infiltration was not always deliberate, for the classes that led the RSPCA had many animal-lovers among their ranks, who nevertheless hunted or shot for sport… Furthermore, fox-hunting had the same ‘snob’ appeal as the RSPCA itself… to attack bloodsports, and fox-hunting in particular, struck at the core of the British class system.. When… in the 1960s, some members of the RSPCA challenged fox-hunting head-on, it was an occasion for much publicity.” (Pg. 188-189)
He explains, “Traditionally, the RSPCA had destroyed colonies of feral cats. But the so-called radicals at this time backed [the] alternative plan to neuter such cats and return them to site. After long resistance from the RSPCA establishment this approach eventually proved practicable and became RSPCA policy.” (Pg. 194-195)
He notes, “One of the most satisfactory campaigns of this period was that initiated by Greenpeace in 1978, when they went a ship to oppose the killing of grey and common seals by Norwegian sealers off the coast of Scotland… Greenpeace, by positioning its personnel near the seals, forced the British government to order the Norwegians to delay the use of their rifles.” (Pg. 199)
He records disagreements among the RSPCA: “It was perhaps because the row over finances had been seen as a clash between radicals and traditionalist that it has taken an unnecessarily long time to resolve. If the so-called traditionalists themselves had called for the inquiries in the first place the matter might have been over in a few weeks… To what extent was the ‘Great RSPCA Row’ of 1980-3 of any real significance? In some respects---incompetent management, almost incredible resistance to change, unionization, over-manning and bureaucratic lethargy---the society had been a microcosm of some of the problems of British society in general… The crippling internecine warfare withing the RSPA must have delighted many exploiters of animals who, a year or two earlier, had been worried by the society’s more incisive approach.” (Pg. 205-206)
He laments, “One of the saddest aspects of the worldwide campaign for animal protection has been the part played---or not played---by the veterinary profession. Widely seen by members of the public as being interested in the welfare of animals, with a few glorious exceptions vets have been distinguished by their absence from the great campaigns of the last two hundred years.” (Pg. 208)
He summarizes, “The twentieth century has seen a gradual change in attitude towards the treatment of wildlife, from a position of total exploitation, to anthropocentric conservation, through to a more genuine concern for the nonhumans themselves… there are three main differences between traditional conservation and modern wildlife protection. First, the former is for human benefit whereas the latter is for the sake of the wild creatures themselves. Secondly, conservation is concerned with saving species whereas protection includes care for individuals. Thirdly, protection aims to stop suffering as well as to protect life and habitat.” (Pg. 238-239)
He argues, “the scientist [performing research on animals] is often quick to point out that his or her nonhuman subjects are excellent biological models for human beings… Why then one may ask, if nonhumans are so PHYSICALLY similar, do they not share a MORAL similarity with humans? Scientists cannot have it both with ways; either nonhumans are poor models for humans or they ought to be treated with similar consideration and respect. This moral argument---the argument against speciesism---is rarely responded to by scientists, perhaps because there is no rational reply.” (Pg. 242)
He again summarizes, “The 1970s and 1980s have been hugely increasing public awareness of the sufferings of nonhumans in intensive husbandry, transportation and slaughter, and a swing against meat-eating…Although the food industry was showing signs of responding slowly to changing public attitudes it was still a force which impeded animal welfare reforms. At the end of the 1980s most farm animals in Britain continued to be kept in unnatural and distressing conditions conducive to disease, often fed upon the processed products of their own excreta and the bodies of other members of their species who had died of disease or injury.” (Pg. 270-271)
He says of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), “Almost certainly… the ALF is not the highly organized and centrally controlled organization that some people have claimed, nor is it funded lavishly by sinister or other sources, but quite meagerly and by very ordinary British people. It is, most probably, a collection of individuals acting independently driven by a sense of outrage and compassion, with no ulterior or party political motive and no particular flair for organization. The militants participating in protest marches have certainly attracted to their ranks a few of unusual appearance, some of them black-suited and punk-hairstyled, who call themselves anarchists. For many of these, one motive has appeared to be a need to find an identity and a sense of purpose in a society with high levels of unemployment which offered little hope to the young… For some, it is a passing phase, but for the others, the majority vegans and vegetarians, it is a passionately felt and rationally argued conviction…
“The very great amount of damage done to the property of animal exploiters over the years has put up insurance premiums and forced many to think seriously about the economic as well as moral implications of animal abuse.” (Pg. 274-275) Later, he adds, “at the time of this writing (1988), there is no authenticated case of death or serious injury being caused by humans or nonhumans by these militants. Hundreds of thousands of pounds’ worth of damage … has been done, but damage of any sort of living beings has been remarkably slight. On the other hand, animal campaigners HAVE been killed.” (Pg. 287)
He acknowledges, “When an issue moves in America it certainly seems to move faster and to get results far quicker than it does in conservative and cynical Britain, where our ideas have led the way but our achievements have been so limited. Perhaps Americans enjoy change, but the British do not.” (Pg. 306)
He suggests, “Gradually, more evidence accrues to suggest that nonhumans are conscious and feel pain… Whatever are the CAUSES of consciousness, its moral importance is clearly paramount. It matters not if an animal, whether human or nonhuman, is intelligent or communicative, or has an immortal soul. All that matters is that it is conscious: in particular that it can be conscious of pain and pleasure. This should be the bedrock of our morality. Pain is pain regardless of the species that is suffering it.” (Pg. 325-326)
He explains, “the word ‘rights’ … seems to me to be synthetic and unconvincing---whether applied in the human case or otherwise. This is one reason why I coined the word ‘speciesism’ in 1970… Speciesism is, I suppose, a compromise word… It describes the doer’s negative attitude and actions, rather than his or her positive qualities. It denotes… the exploitation, oppression and cruel injustice which flow from this prejudice.” (Pg. 328)
He concludes, “The absurdity and exaggeration of the traditional excuses for speciesism---that nonhumans feel no pain, that God created them for human use, that they have no souls or that the benefits of their exploitation are overwhelmingly necessary---suggest very strongly that humankind often, perhaps always, feels guilt over its speciesism. None of the excuses for speciesism are rationally convincing… gradually, politicians have taken … the public’s environmental concerns and animal protection is being seen, increasingly, as a major part of the ‘green’ movement… People who are cruel to nonhumans are not all wicked; most are just unthinking. Those of us who seek change must not resort to hatred or violence, but press on with our campaign to educate and legislate. We want people to open their eyes and to see the other animals as they really are---our kindred and our potential friends with whom we share a brief period of consciousness upon this planet.” (Pg. 336)
This book will be of great interest to those studying animal rights, animal welfare, and related issues.
June 26, 2015
Although I follow more the animal rights and abolitionist view, Ryder widens the important debate with his philosophical view of painism. An important way to understand speciesism.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews