Hi! Dr Dyann Ross here with you! I’m The Love Theorist!
The topic today is about how love is required for justice to matter. This is a big statement and I aim to unpack it by introducing the idea of eco-justice and tying it closely to the idea of love as a commitment to contribute to justice issues. Wherever there is violence or lovelessness, there is an issue of justice because someone, a group, a community, a species has been harmed or their rights to peaceful co-existence have been intruded upon. Eco-justice or ecological justice is an umbrella term for three interlinked types of justice, namely
* Social justice
* Species justice, and
* Environmental justice.
I will explain these types of justice and explore their interlinks to put the case for a more inclusive understanding of justice. This is important to ensure a theory of love is encompassing of all of life and all of the complex challenges to sustaining life, peace and wellbeing for all.
Social justice
Social justice is THE main value of the social work profession and is defined typically in terms of what social justice work involves – for example it is about upholding “social fairness by acting to reduce barriers and to expand choice and potential for all persons, with special regard for those who are disadvantaged, vulnerable, oppressed or have exceptional needs” (AASW, 2020, p. 9). Further, the Australian social workers’ Code of ethics recognises the importance of promoting “the protection of the natural environment as inherent to social wellbeing” as part of social justice but stops short of recognising nonhuman animals’ rights (Ryan, 2011).
I like Iris Young’s (1990) definition of justice as being reflected in the inclusion of people in decisions which impact them. Nancy Fraser (2009) delves further into the processes required by explaining that the impacted parties need to be regarded as equal moral participants in addressing the justice issue. For me, this needs to also be about the environment and animals as equal moral participants, albeit via the representations of advocates. The ethico-legal principle of procedural justice (Swain & Rice, 2009) sometimes called natural justice, brings attention to the need for authority figures to act in non-discriminatory and accountable ways to protect individuals’ rights.
International Conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are premised in western ideas of individual human rights being upheld as integral to justice being experienced. Peoples’ rights are not assured and there is increasing evidence of ecological conflict where human rights conflict with industry rights to access lands for mining. In these instances the human [and animal] communities and the environment tend to lose out (Brueckner & Ross, 2010; Ross & Puccio, 2020).
Species justice
Species justice is a less familiar term and is closely related to animal rights. There is no international convention protecting the rights and wellbeing of animals. Speciesism describes the discrimination against nonhuman animals which occurs due to the human species’ superiority and power to control, use and kill some species of animals for human consumption. The use of other animals is made socially acceptable through the belief that they are not equal and thus do not need to be afforded rights and feelings. Eaglehawk coins the term “anthropocentric harm” that occurs due to human superiority and bias against nonhumans. She argues that “killing animals for human consumption cannot be justified on moral grounds or on grounds of logic [in so far as there is evidence that shows] that humans do not need to eat meat, eggs or dairy to survive and thrive (2020, pp. 102-103).
Species justice, especially for animals with a commercial value, equates a loving recognition of the equal intrinsic worth of all species and it also thereby equates with no violence. Veganism is the refusal to use nonhuman animals for food, entertainment, research, clothing and sport and for me is a moral baseline in how I attempt to live my values. A commitment to veganism also involves working to dismantle the animal industrial complex of businesses, institutions and governments who promote or at least protect the use of nonhuman animals. Alger suggests that veganism “can be used as a tool to contribute to human liberation alongside animal liberation with potential benefits for social justice, public health and environmental sustainability” (2020, p. 5). Just how this might be possible is the subject of her book and one small example I am aware of is the over-representation of migrant workers in abattoirs where there are known severe mental health impacts on the workers, many of whom have experienced trauma and discrimination from being refugees (Nagesh, 2017).
My main focus here is on the ethical dimensions of the argument for species justice where the mass scale slaughter of nonhuman animals is evidence of lovelessness and violence by the dominant species toward other species. hooks (2000) explains that change requires a conversion from an ethic of domination to an ethic of love. There is a pressing need to develop an inter-species ethics to see a different way for societies and individuals to respond, and one interesting writer in this space is Cynthia Willett (2014) who identifies 4 types of ethics to expand humans’ ways of being with nonhuman animals, namely:
Subjectless sociality, where we suspend our individual sense of self to merge our awareness with other animals, sharing a similar space or experience, as occurs during a flood or bushfire disaster.
Intersubjective attunement, which refers to adjusting our behaviour to be in step with other animals to meet their needs to gain their co-operation.
The third type of inter-species ethics is quite wordy, it relates to “affect clouds of biosocial networks… [which are] not properties or states interior to bound subjects or nonporous bodies”, I take this to mean fostering relationships with other animals in a shared environment where for example, animals are known to come to the aid of humans in trouble and when humans and other animals enjoy each others company.
Finally, is the willingness to recognise and make room for the implications of animal spirituality and sense-making and agency (cited in Ross, 2020, p. 87). We know our pets have feelings and research has shown this to be true in so many other relationships with nonhuman animals – see https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/150714-animal-dog-thinking-feelings-brain-science
In a nutshell, practising empathy for other species and regarding them as of equal moral worth are two ways to challenge speciesism and to avoid being complicit in the industrialised mass violence against some nonhuman animals. We all have pets whom we love and would do anything to care for them. Affording other animals this same love offers hope that change towards love is possible.
Environmental justice
Environmental justice can be best understood in terms of the presence of social, economic, and environmental sustainability of ecosystems, whole nations, and the planet. As I note in one of my books:
* Social sustainability shows as equality between people and between people and nonhuman animals;
* Economic sustainability shows as nonviolence and non-exploitation between business owners, governments and wealthy citizens, and other people and nonhuman animals, and;
* Environmental sustainability shows as mutual respect, love, and justice between people, nonhuman animals, and the natural world (2020, p. 38).
The key point is that justice requires these intersecting forms of sustainability and in turn that sustainability issues, as evident in wicked problems and all types of violence, need to be addressed for justice to be realised. It follows that social justice cannot be achieved without environmental and species justice. I agree with White (2009) who argues that it is a state crime if governments do not act to protect the environment from exploitation by private interests. In Australia, most states’ environmental protection legislation contains an environmental precautionary principle to enable governments to not proceed with approvals where to do so might cause irreparable harm or loss to the environment. A recent example is where restrictions on the development approval of wind turbines in northern Tasmania are required to protect the migrating orange-bellied parrot -
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/16/wind-farm-will-need-to-shut-down-five-months-a-year-to-protect-parrots.html
In societies where there is widespread social sustainability - ie social equality – between people, this will be expressed as relationships where there is love, nonviolence, and justice. The fostering of all types of sustainability is at the heart of First Nations’ idea of stewardship. Anne Poelina writes that “country [is] … alive, vibrant and all encompassing […] [and thus is] an active participant in the world and fully connected in a vast web of dynamic, interdependent relationships. These relationships are strong and resilient when they are maintained” (2020, p. ix).
Eco-justice for the love of all beings
The adoption of a more expansive idea of justice is not an idle academic exercise but rather a critical task to develop the ecological imagination and responses required to address the wicked problems of our time. Mitchell Thomashow (2014) explains that an ecological imagination is where we can imagine new ways of being, understand the interconnections between all elements of life and engage with others to co-create new possibilities.
Wicked problems are interconnected issues including poverty and famine, climate change, mining industry pollution, loss of biodiversity, and deforestation. Holly Higgins (2010) coins the term ‘ecocide’ which includes ‘eco’ meaning oikos, dwelling place, in Greek and the French ‘cide’ which means killer - to argue that we need to “eradicate ecocide [by] forcibly removing the systems that are killing and destroying our habitat” (p. xi). By ‘forcibly removing’ she means through the use of national and international legal interventions. She explains that “without the wellbeing of the ecology of our planet, our wellbeing suffers” (xii).
Higgins’s view is consistent with First Nation ideas where, as Anne Poelina writes “for First Australians land, water, people, and the environment are intrinsically entwined” (2020, p. viii). Poelina goes on to describe how in her language she is “a woman who belongs to the Mardoowarra (Fitzroy River) … [such that] customary law determines that in regard to my relationship to the river, the Mardoowarra owns me. I am duty bound to protect the river’s right to life because it is the river of life” (p. viii).
Thus, for a love theory to guide responses to oppression and violence, we can’t hold to a human-centric stance on who matters.
This brings me to my key ethical premise which is that all beings and entities that compromise life on the planet are of equal intrinsic worth. The life of a tree is as important as my life and as important as the wild horse’s life. To make this statement is one thing, to deeply believe in it is another and to act on this belief is very difficult. It is not a position that is self-evident in western societies premised on the superiority of humans, and in colonialist, patriarchal societies, premised on the superiority of white men, and in capitalist societies it is not self-evident that nature has a right to exist without being considered only in terms of its use value to humans.
This equal intrinsic worth premise places quite some moral pressure on us humans to regard and treat nonhuman animals as having rights to live peacefully and have their needs met. It also challenges us to regard and treat nonhuman entities and other sentient beings as having rights to co-exist without being exploited and harmed. These are by no means well-accepted moral positions.
In summary
Love that is multi-faceted and multi-focused that embraces the intersectionality of life on the planet is needed for justice to matter. Without this expansive commitment to love others and other places, untold tyrannies and unchecked exploitation would be rife. Tyrannies and exploitation are occurring but would be far worse without millions of loving people working to enable justice, peace and the survival needs, and other rights of people, animals, and landscapes.
Eco-justice was explored as a way of fostering this multi-dimensional and multi-focused commitment to love. Eco-justice links social, species, and environmental justice in recognition of the interconnectedness of violence, oppression, and exploitation. This idea requires an ethical positioning that upholds the equal intrinsic worth of all beings and entities that comprise nature and the totality of life on the planet.
References
Alger, K. (2020). Five essays for freedom: A political primer for animal advocates. Revolutionaries.
Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW). (2020). Code of ethics. AASW.
Brueckner, M., & Ross, D. (2010). Under corporate skies: A struggle between people, place and profit. Fremantle Press.
Fraser, N. (2009). Who counts? Dilemmas of justice in post westphalian world. Antipode, 41(1), 281-297.
Higgins, P. (2010). Eradicating ecocide: Laws and governance to prevent the destruction of our planet. Shepheard -Walwyn Publishers.
Nagesh, A. (2017). The harrowing psychological toll of slaughterhouse work. https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/31/how-killing-animals-everyday-leaves-slaughterhouse-workers-traumatised-7175087/
Poelina, A. (2020). Foreward. First law is the natural law of the land. In D. Ross., M. Brueckner, M. Palmer & W. Eaglehawk (Eds.). Eco-activism and social work: New directions in leadership and group work (pp. viii-xii). Routledge.
Ross, D., & Puccio, V., (2020). Homegrown community activism in Yarloop. In D. Ross., M. Brueckner, M. Palmer & W. Eaglehawk (Eds.). Eco-activism and social work: New directions in leadership and group work (pp. 26-38). Routledge.
Ryan, T. (2011). Animals and social work: A moral introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.
Swain, P., & Rice, S. (Eds.). (2009). In the shadow of the law: The legal context of social work practice (3rd edn.). The Federation Press.
Thomashow, M. (2014). The ecological imagination: A portfolio of possibilities. https://www.mitchellthomashow.com/blog/what-is-the-ecological-imagination
White, R. (2009). Environmental victims and resistance to state crime through transnational activism. Social Justice, 36(3), 46-60.
Willett, C. (2014). Interspecies ethics. Columbia University Press.
Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.
