1 Introduction
1.3 Research Purpose and Scope
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the enactment of legislation such as the 1989 Wildlife Conservation Act. Since then, ecological rationales have greatly expanded in Taiwanese socio-political discourses, most significantly through the various incarnations of environmentalism in the country (Hsiao, 1999). Along these developments, growing awareness of issues related to the treatment of animals steadily increased giving rise to a variety of animal advocacy efforts. In particular, the formation of the Life Conservationist Association (LCA), Taiwan’s first animal advocacy organization, and which was central to the spread of modern animal rights and animal welfare rationales in Taiwan.
Subsequently leading to the passing of the Animal Protection Act in 1998 (Lin, 2015).
Nevertheless, although animal protections laws and mechanisms have gradually been enacted, various problems affecting animals in Taiwan remain. From pet abandonment and stray animal populations, to animal abuse in entertainment and factories, advocacy groups are increasingly vocal in their efforts to represent the interests of animals in the country. At the same time, bringing attention to issues of lax enforcement, inadequate animal welfare standards, and insufficient public awareness of animal wellbeing. Consequently, these developments highlight the work of a growing sector of civil society actors engaged in transforming socio-natural relationships in Taiwan through the spread of concepts such as animal welfare and animal rights.
1.3 Research Purpose and Scope
In relation to the researchers’ personal engagement with animal activism and interest in eco-politics, this thesis project came about through the observation that in spite of a considerably extensive amount of research in ecological affairs, less attention has been placed on the aspect of animal protection from a socio-political perspective in Taiwan. This led to the formulation of a very general yet puzzling initial thought: “Are ‘animals’ political?”. This first question eventually shaped into a more specific problem: “How are socio-natural relationships political?”. From this
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
point, further inquiry was directed back to the case of the animal protection movement comprised by animal advocacy actors, their distinctive eco-centric discourses, and non-traditional dynamics of engagement within socio-political spaces. Most notably, the increasingly vocal and visible role played by animal protection groups, in particular internationally active organizations such as PETA, Mercy for Animals, and the Humane Society in advancing the concepts of animal rights and animal welfare around the globe. As a result of the juxtaposition between the international developments surrounding animal advocacy and the case of Taiwan, a gap in the study of the country’s ecologically oriented social movements was revealed. This observation in addition to the fact that the country is currently facing important animal policy imperatives in addition to the spread of veganism in the country opened an opportunity to further research these developments.
Consequently, the main objective of this thesis is twofold. First, to bring attention to the Animal Protection Movement (APM) in Taiwan as a representative example of a New Social Movement (NSM). Second, to examine the implication of growing issue networks surrounding animal advocacy for the eco-political and democratic landscape of Taiwan. In particular, the latter aspect aims to highlight how individual activists and advocacy organizations mobilize to transform socio-natural relationships through the spread of animal rights and animal welfare discourses within socio-political spaces.
While this thesis seeks to present a comprehensive account of the developments surrounding the APM in Taiwan, its many advocacy areas, the different mobilization approaches, and levels of organization, the later part of this research places particular attention to the ongoing debates surrounding stray animal management efforts and shelter reform. These issues are currently a primary concern among most animal advocacy groups due to Taiwan’s move to become a “no-kill” nation (White, 2016). Furthermore, they embody the overlapping and sometimes
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
conflicting discourses currently advanced by different animal protection groups and which have important implication for policy outcomes in regard to animals in the country.
1.3.1 Terminology.
It is important to note that there exist some significant differences between the concepts of animal welfare and animal rights. The former refers to the ‘humane’ treatment of animals and concern for their general health and wellbeing, the latter entails the recognition of animals as moral entities deserving of equal standing to humans. In practice, these views translate into different normative arguments and goals that are sometimes at odds (Guither, 1998; Sunstein and Nussbaum, 2004: 4). On the one hand, animal welfare advocacy does not necessarily question the morality of human-animal relationships beyond the prevention of cruel practices in the treatment of animals. Therefore, the use of animals as food or clothing is acceptable as long as certain standards are met. On the other hand, the argument for animal rights is based on the moral standing of animals as equal sentient beings where animal suffering should be understood on the same level as human suffering. As Regan (1986) states, Animal rights activism focuses on: (a) the total abolition of the use of animals in science; (b) the total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture; (c) the total elimination of commercial and sport hunting and trapping. Based on this perspective, the objectification and commodification of animals constitute an expression of
“Speciesism”. On the lines of sexism or racism, this refers to the idea that different species deserve different value, rights, or consideration based on their membership to an animal group. In practice, this translates into our perception of animal lives and their suffering as morally less relevant to that of our own people, and the differential treatment we give animals based on their usefulness to us as companions or as economic animals (Singer, 2002; DeGrazia, 2006:49).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Figure 1 Normative differences underlying socio-natural relationships based on speciesism (Source: Author).
Consequently, the key difference between animal rights and animal welfare can be understood through the fact that “Animal rights advocates are campaigning for no cages, while animal welfarists are campaigning for bigger cages” (The Ethics Centre, 2016).
From here, despite the internal differences between animal rights and animal welfare groups, the terms ‘Animal Rights Movement’ and ‘Animal Protection Movement’ are often interchangeably used as an umbrella concept to refer to these various groups (Waldau, 2010: 4).
Nevertheless, in the Taiwanese context, because of the relatively new development of animal advocacy rationales and the socio-cultural context in which these groups have emerged, this Thesis will refer to these groups under the term of ‘Animal Protection Movement’ (APM).