Shocked with what they’re
seeing, Gillespie and her research buddy (more on buddy system research here) share
a look that communicates the kind of bind they find themselves in, which is one
that is extremely delimiting in a number of ways. Firstly, they are keenly
aware of the fact that they do not belong at the cull auction, which is an
extremely masculine space that is not normally accessed by researchers, let
alone female ones. Any display of grief or rage would single them out as
outsiders, and potentially reinforce the barriers that make it so difficult for
scholars to gain access to spaces of dairy production in the first place (more
about this in chapter two of the book). Secondly, as an academic, Gillespie acknowledges
how unprepared she is to make impulsive decisions – like purchasing a cow for 35
USD – when she almost naturally, and by training, complicates situations by
throwing up questions, for example concerning logistics (does the cow fit in
her station wagon) and ethics (why this cow, and not the others?). Her task seems
to be much more narrowly delineated; “we just needed to focus on the animals in
front of us, not thinking, not reacting, just watching” (96).
Yet, for all the ‘passiveness’
involved in her research, Gillespie’s book is a work of activism, in the sense
that is an expertly crafted message with clear intent to move – emotionally, as
well as politically. Her prose is deliberately unacademic, personal, and
visual, thus mobilizing the politics of sight (cf. Pachirat), which seeks to
expose the way both physical and media infrastructures conceal and normalize
social and animal injustices. Equally
savvy, perhaps, is Gillespie’s silence on vegetarianism and veganism, which she
only mentions in passing. In a book as personal as hers, I find Gillespie’s
silence remarkable, and for me it raises a lot of questions. Should scholars
come out as vegetarians or vegans in academic work? What about in more activist
writing? What happens, rhetorically, in such a coming out moment? What is at
stake, for example in terms of scientific credibility, or moral persuasiveness?
It seems to me, ironically, that many vegetarians and vegans share the burden
of ‘consumer fragility’ with the proponents of meat and dairy production. Consumer
fragility (a term suggested by one of the session's participants, modeled after the
notion of white fragility), describes people’s extreme defensiveness when they
are exposed to even minor stressors regarding their consumption of meat and
dairy. Often, for the sake of diplomacy, or even advocacy, vegans and
vegetarians attend to this fragility by mincing their words or by keeping quiet, knowing that their presence alone - especially at the dinner table - can easily be taken as an affront. Such a silence, however, perpetuates the illusion of capitalist realist animal agriculture, the illusion that there is no other way to eat and live, than to eat and live in Burgerland.
Laura op de Beke (a vegan)
Gillespie, Kathryn. The Cow With Ear Tag #1389. University of Chicago Press, 2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment