(English below)
“Bir k繹pee bunu yapar m覺yd覺n覺z?” sorusu veganl覺k savunusunda, en az覺ndan “Bat覺” 羹lkelerinde 癟ok癟a kullan覺l覺yor. Sokaktan ge癟en insanlara mezbaha g繹r羹nt羹leri izleten bir aktivistin “bu videoda izledikleriniz bir k繹pee yap覺lsayd覺 nas覺l hissederdiniz?” diye sorduunu s覺k s覺k g繹r羹yoruz. Bu tip kar覺lat覺rmalar olduk癟a yayg覺n ve bunun bir sebebi var: bir癟ok insan k繹pekleri seviyor ya da sevdiini d羹羹n羹yor. “Bat覺”da k繹peklerle bolca sosyalleiliyor. K繹pekleri, k繹pek olmayan hayvanlardan farkl覺 g繹r羹yoruz. K繹pekler bizim i癟in “evcil hayvan”, dost veya aile 羹yesi olabiliyor. Bu tip kar覺lat覺rmalar, iddet g繹r羹nt羹lerini izleyen kiinin ger癟ekten 繹nemsedii kiilerin, izledii iddete maruz kald覺覺n覺 hayal etmesini ve kendilerini “Eer bir k繹pei incitmek istemiyorsam, neden bir inei incitmek isteyeyim ki?” diye sorgulamas覺n覺 sal覺yor. Fakat ne kadar etkili olduklar覺ndan ba覺ms覺z olarak, bu kar覺lat覺rmalar bir癟ok y繹nden sorunlu.
1. Bu tip kar覺lat覺rmalar t羹rc羹 iddetin k繹peklere uygulanmad覺覺n覺 ima etmi oluyor.
“Ya k繹pek olsayd覺 bu hayvanlar? Bir k繹pee bunlar覺n yap覺lmas覺n覺 ister miydin?” dediimizde, bunun k繹peklere hi癟 yap覺lmad覺覺n覺 ima etmi oluyoruz, ki bu kesinlikle yanl覺: “bat覺l覺” insan toplumu i癟in her ne kadar k繹peklerin yeri ayr覺 olsa ve k繹pekler bu toplumlarda g覺da olarak s繹m羹r羹lmeseler bile, t羹rc羹 iddetin maruz kalanlar覺. Beaglelar dirikesimde ikencelere maruz kal覺yor; taz覺lar ve avc覺 k繹pekler yar覺 end羹strisinde k繹leletiriliyor ve 繹ld羹r羹l羹yor; baz覺lar覺 avc覺lar, polis ya da ordu taraf覺ndan tehlikeli durumlara maruz b覺rak覺larak agresif olmalar覺 i癟in eitiliyorlar; insan topluluklar覺 i癟erisinde ba覺ms覺zca yaayan k繹pekler ise yakalan覺p bar覺naklara ve muhtemelen “繹tenazi” ile 繹ld羹r羹lecekleri tesislere kapat覺l覺yorlar. tenazi, bu tesislerin bizzat kulland覺覺 s繹zc羹k ama r覺zas覺z 繹tenaziye olsa olsa cinayet denir. Bunlarla birlikte; baz覺 k繹pekler onlarla kurduumuz iliki yoluyla duygusal tatmin yaamam覺z ve dilediimizde evden atabilmemiz amac覺yla 羹retiliyor. Doal evrimleri g繹z ard覺 ediliyor ve onlar覺n iine yaramayacak ama bizim g繹z羹m羹ze hitap edecek ekilde genetik anlamda manip羹le ediliyorlar. yle ki baz覺 k繹pek 覺rklar覺, insanlar覺n estetik anlay覺lar覺 y羹z羹nden iddetli sal覺k problemleri gelitiriyor. Bu liste yeterince ayr覺nt覺l覺 deil. M羹mk羹n olan en iyi durumda bile, t羹rc羹 olmayan efkatli bir aile taraf覺ndan bak覺m覺 羹stlenilmi bir k繹pek, 繹zg羹rl羹羹 羹zerinde a覺r k覺s覺tlamalar olan yasal m羹lkiyet say覺l覺yor ve bak覺m覺n覺 羹stlenmi kiilere ba覺ml覺 bir konumda bulunuyor.
2. Bu kar覺lat覺rma t羹rc羹l羹k tan覺m覺n覺 buland覺r覺yor.
K繹peklerin, dier insan olmayan hayvanlardan daha ayr覺cal覺kl覺 olduunu, t羹rc羹l羹羹n maruz kalan覺 olmad覺klar覺n覺 ama evcil hayvan olarak s繹m羹r羹ld羹klerini ima ederek, bulan覺k bir t羹rc羹l羹k tan覺m覺 gelitirmi oluyoruz. “Birini severken dierini neden yiyoruz?”, “izgiyi nereye 癟ekiyoruz?” ya da “Tek fark alg覺n” derken t羹rc羹l羹k temelli bir 繹nyarg覺 ve ayr覺mc覺l覺a; t羹rler aras覺ndaki hiyerariye dikkat 癟ekmeye 癟al覺覺yoruz ama t羹rc羹l羹k tam olarak bu deil. T羹rc羹l羹k baz覺 t羹rleri sevip dierlerini iddetli bir ekilde s繹m羹rmek deil; insan olmayan t羹rlerden bireyleri, birey olarak g繹rmemek ve onlara ilevlerine g繹re paha bi癟mektir. T羹rc羹 insan d羹nyas覺nda, k繹peklere de t覺pk覺 dier insan olmayan hayvanlara olduu gibi ilevlerine g繹re paha bi癟iliyor. Bu ilev, evcil hayvan olmak, bir yerde “i癟i” olarak 癟al覺mak veya 癟ok daha baka bir ey olabilir. T羹rc羹l羹k kar覺tlar覺 olarak, t羹rc羹l羹羹n ne olduunu ve neden buna kar覺 savat覺覺m覺z覺 a癟覺k癟a ortaya koymal覺y覺z.
3. T羹rc羹l羹kle m羹cadele etmek yerine t羹rc羹 d羹羹nceye hitap ediyor.
Bu t覺pk覺 (cis-het-erkek) bir politikac覺n覺n cinsiyet癟i s繹ylemlerine kar覺 “Niye 繹yle diyorsun? O (kad覺n) da birisinin k覺z覺” arg羹man覺n覺 kullanmak kadar s覺k覺nt覺l覺 癟羹nk羹 bu kad覺nlar覺n bireyliklerine deil de partiyarka i癟erisindeki ilev ve rollerine hitap eden bir arg羹man. Dier bir deyile bu arg羹man cinsiyet癟ilie kar覺 m羹cadele etmiyor, cinsiyet癟i d羹羹nceye hitap ediyor. K繹pek-inek kar覺lat覺rmalar覺 da bu sebeple s覺k覺nt覺l覺. K繹pein evcil hayvan, yolda, oyuncak/akseuar gibi rollerine ve insan olmayan hayvanlar覺n deerli olmak i癟in illa ki bir ilevi olmas覺 gerektii d羹羹ncesindeki soruna deil de bu ilevlerin neden yaln覺zca baz覺 t羹rlere y羹klendiini sorgulamaya yar覺yor. 襤nek ve k繹peklerin haklara sahip olmalar覺 gerektii d羹羹ncesi, genellikle ikisi de yaamaktan 癟覺karlar覺 olan bireyler olduu noktas覺ndan hareketle deil de ineklerin k繹peklerle benzer 繹zellikleri olduu gerek癟esiyle 繹ne s羹r羹l羹yor. T羹rc羹l羹k kar覺tlar覺 olarak, s繹m羹r羹len t羹rlere k繹peklere davran覺ld覺覺 gibi davran覺lmas覺n覺, yani bu t羹rlerin baka bir bi癟imde s繹m羹r羹lmelerini istemiyoruz. T羹m hayvanlar覺n birey olular覺n覺n tan覺nmas覺 yani onlara sayg覺yla davran覺lmas覺n覺 istiyoruz.
4. Peki, ne yapabiliriz?
Eer k繹pek-inek kar覺lat覺rmas覺 yapacaksak, bunu t羹rc羹 olmayan bir ekilde yapt覺覺m覺zdan emin olmal覺y覺z. Se癟eneklerden bir tanesi, kar覺lat覺rmay覺 yapmadan 繹nce iletiime ge癟tiimiz tarafla k繹peklerin birey olduu y繹n羹nde bir karara varmak olabilir. Bu 繹zellikle bir k繹pekle yaayan veya yaam覺 biriyle konuuyor isek ve bu kii k繹peklerin dier hayvanlar gibi kiilik, arzu ve 癟覺karlar覺 olduunu g繹zlemlemi ise gayet kolay olabilir. “K繹pekleri 繹ld羹rmek hakk覺nda ne d羹羹n羹yorsunuz?” diye sormadan 繹nce “K繹peklerin, i癟kin deere ve yaama hakk覺na sahip bireyler olduklar覺n覺 d羹羹n羹yor musunuz?” sorusunu sormak ve sonras覺nda bu d羹羹nceyi dier hayvanlar覺 kapsayacak ekilde geniletmeye 癟al覺mak ie yarayabilir. Yine de neden b繹yle bir kar覺lat覺rma yapal覺m ki? Dorudan insanlar覺 kaynak olarak kullanman覺n (繹h繹m, kapitalizm bunu birazc覺k yap覺yor) doru olup olmad覺覺n覺 sorabilir ve nedeni 羹zerine konuabiliriz. Ne de olsa insan olmayan hayvanlar覺 s繹m羹rmememizin nedeni insan hayvan覺n覺 s繹m羹rmememizin nedeniyle ayn覺. Hepimiz hayvan覺z.
Bu metni kaleme alan kii 癟ok sevdii k繹pek dostuyla birlikte ya覺yor. Anti Speciesist Action’覺n insan olmayan hayvanlarla yaama konusundaki konumlan覺覺, aksi takdirde 繹lecek bireylerin bireyliklerini tan覺yarak ve imkan覺m覺z varsa vegan beslenmelerini salayarak bak覺m覺n覺 羹stlenmenin sorunlu olmad覺覺 y繹n羹nde. Ayr覺ca ASA evcil hayvan end羹strisi de dahil insan olmayan hayvanlar覺n genetik manip羹lasyona ve 羹retimine de iddetle kar覺.
*As覺l metinde inek yerine domuz 繹rnei verilmiti. Ancak yaad覺覺m覺z corafyada k繹pek-inek kar覺lat覺rmas覺 daha yayg覺n olarak kullan覺ld覺覺ndan 繹rnei inek olarak deitirdik.
EN
The Problem with Dog Analogies in Antispeciesism
“What if they were dogs?” is something we hear a lot in vegan outreach, at least in “Western” countries. The person will be showing footage from an enslavement and slaughter facility and asking the member of the public, “what if they were dogs? Would you feel any differently?” Dog comparisons are common, and there’s a reason for it: a lot of humans love – or think they love – dogs. In the “West”, we are socialised around dogs; we are conditioned to see them differently than we see non-dog animals. Dogs are “pets”; they are friends; they are family members. Dog comparisons allow the person being outreached to transpose what they are seeing to someone that they care about, and to ask themselves, “if I wouldn’t want to harm a dog, why would I harm a pig?” And yet, as effective as they might be, those comparisons are problematic. Here’s why:
1. It implies that it doesn’t happen to dogs
When you say “what if they were dogs”, you’re implying that it’s not happening to them. And that’s factually wrong: even though “Western” human society uniquely sees dogs and doesnt exploit them for food, dogs are still victims of speciesism, sometimes with extreme violence. Beagles are tortured in vivisection; greyhounds and lurchers are enslaved and murdered in the racing industry; dogs are put in dangerous situations and trained to be aggressive by hunters, the police, or the military; dogs living independently within human communities are captured and put into shelter and killing facilities where they will most probably be “euthanised” (this is the word that these facilities use, but a euthanasia without consent can only really be called murder); they are bred in large numbers to satisfy our desire for companionship, with mothers and pups who do not possess the right traits often discarded like trash; they are denied their natural evolution and genetically manipulated with traits that are desirable to us rather than useful to them, to the point where some dog breeds develop severe health problems as a result of human cosmetic tastes. This list is not exhaustive. Even in the best possible situation, where a rescue dog is adopted into a loving non-speciesist family, they are still legal property with heavy restrictions on their freedom and they are in a position of forced dependency.
2. It blurs the definition of speciesism
By implying that dogs are privileged over other nonhuman animals, or that the dogs exploited as pets are not victims of speciesism, we promote a blurred definition of speciesism. With phrases like “why eat one and love the other”, where do you draw the line, or “the only difference is your perception,” we hint at a species-based bias and discrimination, and a system of hierarchy of species, but this is not what speciesism is. Speciesism is not about loving certain species and violently exploiting others, it is the refusal to see people from other species as persons and instead valuing them only for their function. In this speciesist human world, dogs, just like other nonhuman animals, are still valued for their function rather than as persons, whether that function is as a pet, a job they did not agree to, or something more nefarious. As anti-speciesists, we should always make it clear what speciesism is and why we are fighting it.
3. It appeals to speciesism rather than fighting it
Just like using “she’s someone’s daughter” to denounce a (cis-het-man) politician’s sexist remarks is problematic because it appeals to womens perceived functions and roles in patriarchy rather than their personhood (in other words, it appeals to sexism instead of fighting it), dog comparisons are problematic because they appeal to speciesism. It’s appealing to a dog’s role as a pet, a companion, an accessory, and questioning why this function is reserved to certain species, rather than asking why nonhumans should have a function at all. Pigs and cows especially are often shown as deserving of rights only because of their similarities with dogs, instead of because they are persons with interests. Anti-speciesists do not want exploited species to be treated like dogs, i.e. to be exploited differently. We want all animals to be treated as persons, and thus, with respect.
4. So what can we do instead?
If you want to use dogs as an analogy, make sure you do it in a non-speciesist way. One possible option could be, when introducing the analogy, to first establish an agreement with your interlocutor that dogs are persons. This can be relatively easy, especially if talking to a human who lives or has lived with dogs and will have themselves observed that dogs have personalities, desires, and interests, just like all animals. So instead of “would you be ok with killing dogs?”, ask “do you believe that dogs are individuals who have inherent value and a right to live?”, and then try to extend that understanding to other nonhuman animals. But why use dogs at all? We could simply ask the person if it would be morally justifiable to use humans as mere resources (side note: capitalism kind of does that), and to explain why not. After all, the reasons why we should not exploit nonhuman animals are the same reasons why we should not exploit humans. We are all animals.
The human who wrote this essay shares their life with their dog companion whom they love dearly. ASAs position on living with nonhuman animals is that we are in favour of adopting and fostering individuals who would otherwise be murdered, respecting their status as nonhuman persons, giving them vegan food when possible, and being vehemently against the genetic manipulation and breeding of all nonhuman animals, including – but not limited to – within the pet industry.
Kaynak/Source: https://antispeciesistaction.com//dog-analogies-and-specie
0 Yorum