By Corey Lee Wrenn

Instructor of Sociology and Ph.D. candidate,Colorado State
University, Ft. Collins

Millions of
Americans share their homes with dogs, cats, and goldfish. Have you ever
considered what their role in human society might be? What about the
spider in your bathtub? Are the members of other species persons, pets,
or pests?

In
the field of sociology, there are various ways of viewing society. Sociologists ascribe to one or more of these
perspectives and this affiliation guides their understanding of social
processes. For the most part, the social
world of study is restricted to humanity. A growing body of research, however, argues that Nonhuman Animals play
an important role in human interactions and have certainly shaped our
environment. Several
sociologists have recognized that the oppression of other animals tends to
mirror and even aggravate the oppression of vulnerable human groups. Still others have argued that, regardless of
the impact on humans, Nonhuman Animals deserve consideration in their own
right.

The
three perspectives highlighted here–functionalist, conflict, and symbolic
interactionalist–are fundamental to sociological theory and are helpful in
organizing our discourse in Nonhuman Animal rights.  Nonhuman Animal rights advocates seek to
liberate other animals and end speciesism (the systematic
oppression of sentient beings based on their species). Sociological perspectives are relevant to combating
speciesism by uncovering the manifestation of Nonhuman Animal oppression in
human society. None of these
perspectives stand independently, but they influence and react to one
another. 

Functionalism

The
functionalist perspective sees society as a stable ongoing entity. This perspective presumes that social phenomena
exist because they are essential to maintain a stable society. In cases where social phenomena are thought
to be problematic and detrimental to social institutions, it is expected that
society will recognize and respond accordingly. In their view, society is always seeking equilibrium and
smooth-functioning. 

From
this perspective, speciesism might be seen as
beneficial to society. Nonhumans are
thought to be invaluable in providing food, labor, companionship,
entertainment, and scientific advancement. In particular, speciesism might be seen as integral to our current
economic system. Certainly, we see this
argument in countermovement claims in response to Nonhuman Animal rights
mobilization (scientists and “meat” packers, for example). Functionalism often reflects traditional
values and fails to see problematic inequalities and injustices. While society is dominated by this
perspective, it thus leaves itself vulnerable to critique.

The
Nonhuman Animal rights movement is divided between two major factions: Those who seek to reform Nonhuman Animal use
(what theorists
have referred to as “welfarism”) and those who seek to end Nonhuman
Animal use (often labeled “abolitionists”). We can see how the functionalist
perspective lingers in welfarist
ideology. Welfarists reject the radical
social restructuring that is so essential to abolitionism. Instead, mainstream Nonhuman Animal rights (which
includes groups like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States) seeks to
adjust animal use to “remedy” outstanding problems and restore the system to
equilibrium. This largely manifests in
legislation and welfare reform like the ban on highly confining gestation
crates for sows in the “pork” industry.

Abolitionists,
on the other hand, call for a
complete abandonment of these speciesist institutions that challenge
social stability. Abolitionists might
also ascribe to functionalism if they take the perspective that speciesism
represents a dysfunction and must be removed to ensure society’s
durability. Indeed, the moral
inconsistencies, violence, health problems, and environmental destruction
associated with speciesism would represent social dysfunction.

Conflict

Conflict
theorists see society as made up of many groups in conflict and in competition
for scarce resources. The conflict
perspective recognizes that significant inequalities exist and they are reinforced
by power differentials and privileges. There is often the assumption that this inequality and oppression should
be challenged in favor of an egalitarian society.

Understandably,
this perspective is heavily adopted by the Nonhuman Animal rights movement. Most recognize that Nonhumans exist in a
state of terrible exploitation and drastic social change is needed to eradicate
that inequality. Abolitionists in
particular recognize that speciesism is a critical issue that reflects human
animal dominance over nonhumans. Speciesism upholds humanness as the norm and protects human power and
privilege. Nonhumans are reduced to resources and are exploited at the benefit
of human society.

Symbolic
Interactionalist

Symbolic
interactionalists are interested in the creation of meaning and symbols. As such, they focus on every day, routine
interactions among groups and individuals that are generally taken for granted
or understood as “common sense.” This
perspective highlights the social construction of sociological phenomena such
as race, gender, and class. While much
of society is socially constructed, however, it is recognized that meanings are
real in their consequences. Reality is
subjective, rather than objective, and is created through interactions.

In
application to speciesism, symbolic interactionalists would recognize that
species is a social construct. Nonhumans
are symbolically created as the “other.” What is “human” and what is “animal” is an arbitrary, subjective
categorization. Accordingly, this
perspective also explores the power of language to reinforce oppression and
inequality. In addition to the negative
consequences associated with labeling Nonhumans as “animals,” we see the power
of derogatory language in upholding that otherness, fostering stereotypes, and
justifying domination in words and insults like “beast,” “rat,” “scaredy cat,”
“chicken,” “cow,” “whale,” “pig,” and so on. Speciesism becomes invisible—it becomes a taken for granted
reality. The interactionalist approach
would also take a critical look at the role of media in creating and
maintaining the symbolic representation of Nonhumans. For instance, other animals are routinely
portrayed as willing participants in their exploitation. Or, more commonly, they are presented as mere
objects:  flesh, skin, or pets. As a powerful agent of socialization, the
media normalizes our use of nonhuman animals through these speciesist
portrayals. 

Intersections
between the Perspectives

While
theorists and activists might ascribe to one particular sociological perspective,
it is not realistic to engage one without recognizing the influence of the
others. Indeed, there is substantial
overlap between the three. That said, in
our advocacy, it is important to consider how speciesism contributes
functionally (or dysfunctionally) to society, how it represents inherent
societal conflict and inequality, and how it is supported (and how it might be
challenged) through social constructions of meaning that varies by culture and
over time.