Full Title Name:  CULTURAL SOLIPSISM, CULTURAL LENSES, UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES, AND ANIMAL ADVOCACY

 

Human cultures are diverse and cultural distinctions can be subtle or jarring. Even between seemingly very similar Western countries, cultural incongruities can be considerable. For instance, the French do not seem to have the same sense of urgency in responding to business and other inquiries as your typical split second American. Nor do the French eat pizza with their hands. When we analyze a culture we typically observe language, religion, cuisine, music, and art. One aspect of culture that may not receive as much attention as it should is cultural similarities and differences relating to the relationship between humans and animals.[FN 1] Similarities abound; virtually all cultures dine on animals, and utilize them for scientific purposes, for work and for entertainment. Thus, animal use and exploitation are *404 culturally ubiquitous. Indeed, the “‘universality of human violence against animals”’ is remarkable.[FN 2]

 

Despite the obvious similarities, cultural differences with respect to attitudes toward and treatment of animals can be profound. Cultures have differing views about the nature of animals, about the value of specific types of animals, and about our moral and ethical duties to animals and how they should be treated. In Western culture, for example, the keeping of pets is endemic; in Chinese and Islamic cultures, this has traditionally not been the case.[FN 3] In India women have sometimes been forced to marry animals.[FN 4] One explanation for this practice is that it is thought by some in India that girls born with a baby tooth showing through the gums or who are ugly or have a disfigured face are possessed by ghosts.[FN 5] The catholicon for this possession, it is thought, is for the girl to marry an animal, often a dog or goat.[FN 6] Having been so delivered from the incantations of the ghosts, the girl is then able to marry a man.[FN 7] It is not only in India where such marriages have occurred; similar marriages to animals have occurred in Sudan, Germany, and Israel.[FN 8] Another practice that may be thought curious is the annual “Monkey Buffet Festival” in Lopburi province in Thailand, where a sumptuous spread of vegetables and fruit is presented for local *405monkeys.[FN 9] In Spain there is the macabre “Day of the Geese,” where a greased goose is hung over water and men leap from boats with the goal of ripping the head off the goose.[FN 10] In a concession to animal rights advocates, this practice is now only done with dead geese.[FN 11]

 

Though a cliché, we do live in a globalized world despite all of our cultural differences. And globalization can have a profound impact on the efficacy of advocacy for the benefit of animals. Attempts in one nation to provide protection for animals can have unintended consequences in our globalized world. For example, prohibitions on certain uses of animals in agriculture, experimentation, or entertainment in one country may simply drive these practices into another jurisdiction. The European Union (the EU) has expressed concern over this issue in connection with recent more stringent EU rules on the use of animals in agriculture.[FN 12] European concern is well-founded. Outsourcing of animal experiments has already become a corporate strategy for some firms. [FN 13]

 

In this globalized world, economies and cultures blend, brew, fuse, and occasionally battle in an amalgam of frequently intersecting, sometimes parallel, and occasionally wildly divergent practices. Given the consequences of globalization, in the push for animal rights and protection[FN 14] cultural differences *406 and similarities are now of paramount import in determining a global strategy for animal advocacy. Outsourcing of animal exploitation makes a “one state strategy” in advocacy for animal rights and protection implausible. The problem that then presents itself is, given the potpourri of human cultures and the need to take a global view of animal rights advocacy, how can animal rights advocates most efficiently and successfully advocate for animals? This article will address this issue.

 

First, I will describe and analyze views of the human/animal relationship from five example cultural traditions: Western culture, represented generally by Europe and North America, Indian culture, Chinese culture, South African culture, and Islamic culture, exemplified primarily here by Turkey. It is not asserted here that any of these cultures or countries are homogenous; they are not. Although Western culture is primarily constructed on Judeo-Christian traditions, there are many facets, tangents, and strands of these and other traditions in the West. India is, of course, an admixture of peoples and religious traditions, as is China. South Africa is a country with a mixture of different cultures and traditions, which have collided in recent history. And Islamic culture includes two major religious traditions as well as numerous offshoots from these major traditions and includes many ethnic groups. Moreover, it is also the case that there will always be individuals and groups within a culture whose views diverge from the cultural norm. The project here is not to attempt to represent each of these cultures as clearly defined and structured monoliths, but rather to attempt to ascertain a few fundamental principles and ideas that make significant contributions to thought about the human/animal relationship in these cultures and countries.

 

I will demarcate the contours and boundaries of these fundamental cultural ideas about animals through analysis of historical as well as current events and issues in these cultures, *407 but for the most part will focus on the dominant religious thought of these cultures. This emphasis on religious thought is prompted by the fact that religious thought or conceptual constructs derived from religious thought are often the foundational ingredient in a culture's view of the human/animal relationship, although it will be discovered that this may not always be the case.

 

Second, laws relating to animals from the chosen countries and cultures will be described and the cultural influences on these laws will be evaluated. Third, the implications of cultural differences and similarities for global animal rights advocacy will be scrutinized. In performing this analysis, this article will construct a model for global animal rights advocacy that incorporates consideration of cultural idiosyncrasies and, at the same time, has a foundation built on certain universally accepted principles. This model posits a “Compound Cultural Lens” of cultural influences that must be assayed in animal advocacy in a globalized world composed of a “Culturally Solipsistic Lens” representing the peculiarities of the particular culture and a “Universal Cultural Lens” that represents certain principles argued to be omnipresent in all cultures. It is posited that animal advocacy can benefit from crafting its messages utilizing these two aspects of the Compound Cultural Lens.

Western culture relating to animals has several fundamental and not necessarily consistent elements. Perhaps the most basic building block of Western culture relating to animals is Aristotle's Great Chain of Being.[FN 15] This hierarchical model classifies the world in a linear sequence from inanimate objects, to plants, to animals, to man, and ultimately to the Prime Mover, God. This hierarchy has a normative aspect--the higher the rung in the hierarchy, the more value we attribute to the entity. Given this hierarchy and its normative trappings, Western culture has no *408 qualms about using animals for whatever utility can be squeezed from them. And this is done with considerable alacrity and efficiency in the Western agriculture and animal experimentation industries. On the other hand, some animals are singled out for special treatment. Pet animals are in this category and are often doted. In addition, although humans are lords over animals, humans are thought to have certain duties with respect to the treatment of animals.

 

This combination of hierarchy, utilitarian exploitation, and duties embedded within this exploitation can be observed in teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition. There are five teachings of Judeo-Christian traditions that are quite unfavorable to the interests of animals. First, animals were placed on earth for the benefit of humans.[FN 16] Second, some animals are inherently unclean.[FN 17] Third, some animals are meant to be sacrificed for us.[FN 18] Fourth, animals are slaves to human needs.[FN 19] Fifth, animals do not have rational souls or sentience.[FN 20]

 

These negative themes are, nonetheless, counterbalanced by some more positive ones. Animals are, for instance, to be given rest on the Sabbath.[FN 21] Animals are also thought to have divine purposes beyond the needs of humans.[FN 22] In addition, animals are beneficiaries of the messianic age with some believing that animals enjoy life after death.[FN 23] As a general proposition, modern Christianity has moved away from more ancient doctrine asserting that animals can be exploited at the whim of humans and are entitled to little or no moral consideration.[FN 24] Christians *409 now generally feel that humans are stewards, not heedless omnipotent masters, over nature and animals, with a strong statement of this view recently reflected in Matthew Scully's book, Dominion.[FN 25] This stewardship concept can be illustrated with examples from the doctrines of the Catholic Church. For instance, Catholic teachings hold that human sovereignty over animals is not to be exercised arbitrarily.[FN 26] Biblical textual support for this position can be found in the Seventh Commandment that enjoins respect for the integrity of creation.[FN 27] Along with this respect comes a duty in Catholic doctrine to be kind to animals: “Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. [[citation omitted] Thus men owe them kindness.”[FN 28] Consistent with these reflections, blessing of animals is performed in some Catholic churches.[FN 29] One is not, however, to be too kind to animals: “one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.”[FN 30] Thus, kindness to animals has limits.

 

In Catholic canons it is permitted to use animals for food, clothing, and work and leisure pursuits.[FN 31] Experiments on animals are also permitted “within reasonable limits” where they contribute to caring for or saving lives of humans.[FN 32] Several Popes have, however, made statements critical of factory *410 farming.[FN 33] When Pope Benedict, while still a Cardinal, was asked about animal issues, he attacked the practice of factory farming asserting that it contradicted “‘the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible.”’[FN 34] And in apparent conflict with traditional Christian thought, Pope John Paul II said that animals had souls and were as close to God as humans.[FN 35] In another Papal revelation, Pope John Paul II recounted a dream he had about a homeless mother cat and her kittens that were denied help, warmth, and food by those who had much, as well as those at Catholic and Anglican churches.[FN 36] Ultimately, the cats were given shelter by a poor old woman.[FN 37] He also stated that “solicitous care” should be given to animals and nature in general, and that animals are a manifestation of God's love.[FN 38] While there are these favorable Papal statements and revelations, American Catholic churches do not seem to reflect these sentiments.[FN 39]

 

So what we ultimately see in these examples is that there are two primary strands of thought about animals in the Western cultural tradition. First, use of animals for human purposes is generally permitted. Second, these uses should be performed in the “kindest” way possible. And these two lines of thought are reflected in anti-cruelty laws and other laws regulating uses of animals in agriculture, science, and entertainment in Western countries. For instance, in the EU uses of animals for *411agricultural, scientific, and entertainment purposes are permitted, but under the eye of numerous laws regulating these uses of animals to avoid “unnecessary pain and suffering” or the like.[FN 40] These laws are also “kind” in the sense that they provide engineering standards that regulate things like the amount of space that animals are provided and how animals need to be fed, watered, and monitored.[FN 41] In the United States there is no federal regulation of the use of animals in agriculture other than for purposes of slaughter and transport, but the federal Animal Welfare Act does regulate animal experimentation.[FN 42] Individual states in the United States have animal cruelty laws that legislate, for the most part, the treatment of pet animals, typically do not apply to animal experimentation or the accepted uses of animals in agriculture, and usually use “unnecessary pain and suffering” or similar language as their main substantive standard for treatment of animals.[FN 43] Some states do have specific laws regulating the use of animals in agriculture and these laws often specify engineering standards for the treatment of animals, like cage size and stocking densities.[FN 44] So what we see in the law in Western cultures is consistent with Western cultural views of animals. It is permissible to use animals for human purposes, but it must be done within certain parameters of “humane” treatment. Notwithstanding this asserted principle of humane treatment of animals, exploitation of animals on a massive scale *412 occurs on factory farms, in animal experiments, and in entertainment venues in Western countries.

I have chosen Hinduism as representative of the general contours of Indian culture as it relates to animals. This is, I believe, justified since 80.5% of Indians identify as Hindu.[FN 45] The most obvious and recognizable cultural peculiarity of Hinduism relating to animals is that cows are sacred.[FN 46] Not surprisingly then, every part of a cow is considered to be divine[FN 47] and the products of cows--milk, curd, ghee (a kind of butter), urine, and dung are considered purifying.[FN 48] Cows are, in addition, viewed by some Hindus as a symbol for the earth because they give and ask for nothing in return.[FN 49] Similarly, the cow is regarded as a symbol of motherhood.[FN 50] Others in the Hindu community see cows as a microcosm of the universe.[FN 51] Given all of this, it should *413 not be astonishing that the name for cow in Hindi, “aghnaya,” means “not to be killed.”[FN 52]

 

But it is not only cows that hold an exalted position in Hindu tradition; other animals are also venerated, including monkeys and snakes.[FN 53] Lions and rats are said to have religious significance as well.[FN 54] Moreover, some Hindu Gods even take animal forms.[FN 55] With this sometimes blurred line between humans and animals, it is a short step to the Hindu idea that animals have souls identical to humans.[FN 56] Indeed, in a sense it can be said that all things are sacred in Hinduism. This is because “Brahman,” the ultimate reality or absolute in Hinduism, is present in all things; so everything partakes in a basic sacredness.”[FN 57]

 

Since all animals are sacred it is considered wrong to kill animals for food in Hinduism.[FN 58] Furthermore, a fundamental teaching of Hinduism, the concept of “ahimsa,” non-violence toward all things, counsels against practices like animal sacrifice and killing of animals generally. [FN 59] “Hinduism teaches respect for all creatures and compassion towards all beings.”[FN 60]

 

*414 Another tenet of Hinduism with implications in the human/animal relationship is reincarnation. The concept of reincarnation is a vital component of Hindu creed; life is cyclical and each person authors his or her next life through good or bad behavior in this life.[FN 61] One's position in the next life is an outcome of one's actions on earth in this one, defined as a person's “Karma,” and through this mechanism one can ascend or descend the ladder of creation and be reincarnated as an animal or Emperor.[FN 62] There are serious Karmic consequences from taking innocent life, causing unnecessary pain or suffering, or abetting causing this kind of pain and suffering.[FN 63] These are actions that can cause the soul to descend. What this ultimately means is that we have all been humans, animals, and plants in prior lives.[FN 64]

 

With all of these animal friendly principles, one might expect India to be a peaceful wonderland for animals. Unfortunately this is not the case. Cruelty to animals is not unusual in India and exploitation of animals is “comparable to or even worse than seen in the West.”[FN 65] Animal sacrifices to various Gods, including the Goddesses Durga and Kali, continue to occur.[FN 66] These animal sacrifices, often associated with the inferior castes in India,[FN 67] sometimes involve the killing of up to 250,000 animals.[FN 68] Animal fighting and hunting have traditionally been permitted and *415 participated in by Hindus.[FN 69] The bull taming sport, Jallikattu, participated in by some Hindus, is quite cruel and involves the beating of hundreds of bulls.[FN 70] Indian politician, environmentalist, and animal activist Maneka Gandhi has described scandalous behavior in animal research in India, including a research facility where billions of dollars were spent on animal research conducted in dreadful conditions with no published results emanating from these experiments in a period spanning twenty years.[FN 71] Also, while vegetarianism is common among Hindus,[FN 72] many Hindus eat meat.[FN 73]

 

Given the favorable principles of the Hindu religion relating to animals, how can such use and abuse of animals be countenanced in India? One contributing factor may be that there is no one set of principles that constitute “Hinduism”: “Because Hinduism is a term that includes many different although related religious ideas, there is no clear single Hindu view on the right way to treat animals.”[FN 74] Moreover, notwithstanding Hindu principles, which in many respects appear very favorable to animals, most Hindus nonetheless believe that animals are inferior to human beings.[FN 75] In fact, classical Hindu theology is itself hierarchical, based on the idea that humans are the only creatures that “have the capacity to receive and appropriate revelation . . . in the form of the Veda, and thus only human beings have access to that which comes from the Veda, mainly Dharma (correct ritual behavior and morality).”[FN 76] The hierarchical scaffolding of the human/animal relationship is not based on only humans having souls, since *416 Hindus believe that animals do have souls, rather it is based on “cognitive, moral, ritual, and soteriological” factors.[FN 77]

 

Belief in reincarnation can also create a perspective contributing to a hierarchical view of the world. The cycle of reincarnation is itself arranged in a hierarchy in which one's goal is to reach the highest level among the following: Gods, who are people of lucidity, humans, who are people of energy, and animals, who are people of darkness.[FN 78] The people of darkness, animals, are described as having negative traits like being ignorant, confused, sensual, greedy, and incontinent, among others.[FN 79] This is not where one wants to arrive in a new incarnation. So the doctrine of reincarnation can potentially be both favorable and unfavorable for animals--while one might treat animals well because animals may be a relative or friend,[FN 80] it is also the case that accumulating bad Karma causes one to “devolve” into the darkness of animalia[FN 81] as punishment--so poor treatment of those who so devolve can be justified as well.

 

Another factor that may contribute to actual practices relating to animals in India, as in some other non-Western countries, is the view of some Indians that concern for animals is a form of cultural imperialism imposed by the West. Consider, for example, that Indian sociological journals show a dearth of articles analyzing non-humans as a focus of concern due, in part, to the thought that concern for animals is a Western import and this belief has stifled debate on the human/animal relationship in India.[FN 82] On the other side of this coin, however, is the idea that the influence of foreign culture and philosophy has contributed to the level of exploitation of animals in India. It has been argued that the anthropocentric influences of both Islamic culture and British rule may play a part in attitudes concerning animals in India and in present-day cruelty to and exploitation of animals in *417 India.[FN 83] Lack of concern for animals may also be justified by the fact that as a poor country, India cannot afford to be concerned about such issues.[FN 84] In addition, class conflict may play a part in the reality of treatment of animals in India. Concern for animals and vegetarianism are associated with upper castes and social elites, and this fact is sometimes used to criticize concerns about animals.[FN 85] So we observe in Indian culture a flurry of cross-currents relating to the human/animal relationship, some favorable to animal interests, some not.

 

 

With inconsistent strands of thought emanating from Hinduism and other aspects of Indian culture and practices, how do Indian culture and the reality of animals in India meld into a legal regime? Compared to many countries, India has quite an extensive set of animal laws. At the pinnacle of Indian animal law is Article 51A of the Indian Constitution providing that: “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India - . . . to have compassion for living creatures.”[FN 86] In Balakrishnan et al. v. Union of India, this provision is the foundation for perhaps the strongest, though somewhat inconsistent, statement in favor of animal rights ever uttered in a court decision:

 

It will surprise no one that, given the status of cows in Hinduism, there are many laws in Indian states that specifically protect them[FN 88] and the Indian Constitution has a provision encouraging prohibition of cow slaughter.[FN 89] In addition, at the federal level, India has a general animal cruelty law and sets of rules relating to transport of animals, slaughter, animal experiments, and animals in entertainment.[FN 90] The main animal cruelty law is The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960 (the PCAA).[FN 91] The PCAA uses language that has historically been used in Western animal cruelty laws to describe proscribed*419 conduct. It is a violation of the PCAA whenever a person: “beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal subjecting it to unnecessary pain or suffering.”[FN 92] It also addresses animal experiments by providing for a Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (the CCSEA) that can make rules on animal experimentation.[FN 93] The CCSEA has created standard operating procedures and animal experimentation rules not unlike those of some Western nations providing for registration of breeders and establishments that perform experiments, requiring approval by the CCSEA or Institutional Animal Ethics Committees of specific experiments, and delivering some fairly vague requirements for housing and care for animals in experiments.[FN 94] Additional rules regulate performing animals, capture of animals, transport of animals on foot and slaughter of animals.[FN 95] In a major move concerning performing animals, India has, pursuant to PCAA § 22, banned the training and exhibition of bears, monkeys, tigers, lions, and panthers.[FN 96] More recently, in May 2013 the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests banned the use of captive dolphins in Dolphinariums, and in June 2013 the Bureau of Indian Standards banned animal testing of cosmetics in India.[FN 97] *420 Unfortunately, though the animal protection laws and regulations of India are numerous, enforcement is lax.[FN 98]

 

These laws can be seen as consistent with Indian culture in numerous respects. A reflection of the Hindu concept of ahimsa can be observed in the Indian Constitution's admonition of compassion for all living things. This principle of compassion is reflected in the Balakrishnan case,[FN 99] in a case ordering officials in the State of Goa to prohibit the conduct of bull fights,[FN 100] and in recent bans on use of certain wild animals in circuses and on keeping captive dolphins.[FN 101] The author of the circular containing the ban on captive dolphins, B.S. Bonal, pointed to the high intelligence and sensitivity of dolphins, noted the fact that dolphins do not thrive in captivity and asserted that dolphins should be considered non-human persons, all of which can be seen as reflecting an expression of compassion for these animals in the law.[FN 102] Reverence for cows is shown in the many state laws that protect cows. The view that animals possess souls and the concept of reincarnation, both ideas revealing the continuity of life, may also influence India's fairly comprehensive set of animal protection laws meant to shield animals from the vicissitudes of human conduct. Nonetheless, the concepts of ahimsa and favorable aspects of reincarnation must be juxtaposed with the hierarchical view of the human/animal relation represented in Indian culture, the reality of the uses of animals in agriculture, experiments and entertainment in India, and the often ill-enforced animal welfare laws of India.

 

Unlike Western and Indian culture, it is difficult to identify a dominant religious or other foundational set of precepts clearly underpinning Chinese culture in relation to animals. There are a number of important religious and other milieus that contribute to Chinese culture. Confucianism is one of these sets of principles. It allows the taking of lives of other animals, but prohibits taking “unfair advantage” of animals.[FN 103] One is to act “reasonably and sensibly towards other forms of life,” showing kindness toward animals, but not to the extent that it interferes with responsibilities to humans.[FN 104] That human life has priority over animals is revealed in the parable of a burned down stable where Confucius asks if humans were hurt but does not concern himself with the fate of the horses.[FN 105]

 

Nevertheless, in Confucianism “[h]umans possess a mind that is incapable of bearing the suffering of others” and there is an “injunction not to cause suffering to others.”[FN 106] When human and animal interests come into conflict, it is the “mind that is incapable of bearing the suffering of others” that must adjudicate the conflict and find the proper moral course.[FN 107] But these principles have not compelled modern Confucians to engage in substantial consideration of questions of animal use, although this may be changing.[FN 108] Ultimately, Confucianism appears *422 unopposed to modern uses of animals in experimentation and otherwise.[FN 109]

 

One line of Chinese religious thought is Taoism (or Daoism). In Taoist doctrine, equal respect is given to all things.[FN 110] Taoism teaches three key principles relating to the nature of animals and their relationship with humans.[FN 111] First, freedom and wildness are the basis for the flourishing of animals.[FN 112] For this reason Taoism is opposed to the domestication of animals.[FN 113] Second, in a similar vein humans are admonished to avoid their tendency to distort their own nature by distorting the natural state (or “Dao”) of animals.[FN 114] Third, animals should be viewed as potential teachers.[FN 115]

 

Regarding the treatment of animals, several Taoist Canons speak of not killing animals.[FN 116] Being vegetarian “is the fundamental of Tao.”[FN 117] With these principles, one would expect Taoism to be strongly protective of animals.[FN 118] Nonetheless, most *423 Taoists eat meat.[FN 119] Not only this, but animal sacrifice is part of Taoist ritual.[FN 120] How can these behaviors be reconciled with precepts against eating animals? One rationale is that since animals eat one another, this permits the eating of meat--meat eating is “a natural process, in harmony with Dao.”[FN 121] Moreover, statements in the Tao Te Ching indicate that the world must be accepted as inhumane and one should not intervene in behavior like meat eating.[FN 122] his view has been called the “amoral neutrality of Taoism.”[FN 123] So in Taoism we find incongruent currents, some flowing favorably for the treatment of animals, others ambivalent.

 

Buddhism, another pillar of Chinese religious thought, is often thought of as a religion that preaches vegetarianism and compassion toward all creatures. This is to an extent true and to a measure not. “Buddhism affirms the unity of all living beings, all equally posses [sic] the Buddha-nature, and all have the potential to become Buddhas.”[FN 124] Non-human life is divine as is human life in Buddhism.[FN 125] It teaches “universal loving kindness towards all living things in the universe.”[FN 126] As a part of this universal love is a fundamental rule of Buddhism--ahimsa--the admonition not to harm or kill any other living being; the same principle we observed in Hinduism.[FN 127] Following the *424 precept against taking the lives of other beings leads naturally to a vegetarian diet.[FN 128] Another way this is expressed is that sustaining oneself at the expense of other creatures is wrong.[FN 129]

 

One overarching principle underlying these rules is the concept of continuity and kinship between humans and animals;[FN 130] the antithesis of hierarchy. Another is the reoccurring idea of reincarnation; other animals have been our father or mother, and in the “yonder world” animals can take revenge on those who harm them.[FN 131] As in Hinduism, all life is viewed as moving toward a higher consciousness.[FN 132]

 

But as we have seen in other creeds, there is a darker side of Buddhist thought and practice not so favorable to animals. While vegetarianism is admired among Buddhists, it is rarely practiced.[FN 133 ]Perhaps surprisingly, even the Buddha accepted meat.[FN 134] Moreover, the world of animals is not portrayed positively. The realm of non-human animals is one of the three states of woe.[FN 135] Animals are stupid, forever killing each other and lack wisdom.[FN 136 ]This cognitively inert and violent existence is an unhappy one.[FN 137] In the Buddhist ideal world there are no *425 animals other than humans.[FN 138] Consistent with this, rebirth as an animal is perceived negatively.[FN 139]

 

Humans, on the other hand, are distinct from all other animals and have traits of a cognitive nature that other animals do not.[FN 140] Humans are superior to other animals and “qualitatively more important than all other living things.”[FN 141] This hierarchical thinking exists even in the face of contrary religious teachings of continuity and kinship, and may arise from traditional cultural factors.[FN 142] There is, for instance, a traditional Chinese saying: “Man is the master of the universe.”[FN 143] Chinese children are also routinely taught, as in other cultures, that humans are above animals[FN 144] and some children's songs even describe animals as evil.[FN 145]

 

Further, although there are some exceptions to this idea, all animals are lumped together in the Buddhist tradition--distinctions are not made between them based on complexity or other traits.[FN 146] Again, as in Hindu thought, one explanation for a dim view of the state of animals is the idea of reincarnation--if one is reborn as an animal this reflects the evil core of the transmigrating soul.[FN 147] Thus, notwithstanding currents of continuity and kinship, certain Buddhist thought flows in a contrary channel to a structured hierarchical view of the relationship of humans and animals.[FN 148] In the end, Buddhism permits the instrumental use of animals.[FN 149]

 

*426 While we can find in the major Chinese historical cultural icons of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism teachings of respect for animals;[FN 150] there is, as we have seen elsewhere, a conflicting and contrary conceptual milieu in Chinese thought that deprecates the animal world, projecting humans to the pinnacle of worldly being. And this latter line of thought is heartbreakingly reflected in the reality of today's China.

 

 

The reality for animals in China has been described in these terms: “[a]nimal suffering is unprecedented in China in magnitude in both numerical terms . . . and in welfare conditions.”[FN 151] Consumption of meat is increasing.[FN 152] Consistent with this, China is the largest animal farming nation in the world and has the largest number of animals on industrialized farms.[FN 153] Factory farming is increasingly employed[FN 154] as are practices like the use of gestation crates, battery cages, beak trimming and other industrialized farming methods, while at the same time some other nations and entities, like the EU, are phasing out these practices.[FN 155] Methods of killing in China are not for the squeamish; monkeys are killed by removing their brains while they are alive, salamanders are skinned alive,[FN 156] dogs used for fur *427 are skinned alive[FN 157] and water is forcibly pumped into pigs before slaughter.[FN 158] There is also considerable long distance transport of animals to slaughter.[FN 159]

 

A practice that has gotten considerable international as well as domestic Chinese attention is bear bile farming. Bear bile is thought to have medicinal qualities, although there does not appear to be any scientific evidence of this.[FN 160] Moreover, bear bile can effectively be produced artificially without the use of bears.[FN 161] Nonetheless, the practice of bear bile farming continues. In this industry, bears are kept in isolated deprivation with continuous catheterization or open wounds.[FN 162] Bear bile is obtained in two ways. In some operations, bears are subjected to painful catheter procedures twice a day to remove bile.[FN 163] In others, bile is collected through the “free drip method” where a permanent hole is made in the bear's abdomen and bile simply drips out to be collected.[FN 164] In 1996, the use of catheters was banned in China, but due to financial constraints, the method is still widely used.[FN 165] The method theoretically required under this law is the “free drip method” which, unfortunately, is just as cruel as catheters if not more so.[FN 166] About half of the bears die of *428 infections or other complications from these procedures.[FN 167] While China has agreed not to give any more licenses for bear bile farms, it remains legal.[FN 168]

 

Animal experiments using about fifteen million animals a year are undertaken in China.[FN 169] Abusive practices have been uncovered in some Chinese animal experiments and have come to public attention.[FN 170] Further controversy has been provoked by the fact that China still requires animal tests on certain cosmetics that are not so tested in many other countries,[FN 171] although the requirement for animal testing of “non-specialized cosmetics” like soaps, shampoos, and some skin products is set to end in June of 2014.[FN 172] Moreover, drug companies are outsourcing their animal testing to China, where the issue of animal testing is less contentious than in Western countries, and where enforcement and oversight of experiments is thought to be lax.[FN 173]

 

Given that numerous doctrines of dominant Chinese traditions have strands of thought favorable to animals, why do *429 we encounter the perplexing existing reality in China? Somehow the positive aspects of traditional thought about animals have not saturated the overall culture of China. Today many mainland Chinese have been described as “possibly indifferent or insensitive to animal suffering.”[FN 174] And this is not just a modern phenomenon. In pre-modern China as in present China, the idea of animal welfare was almost completely absent.[FN 175] Part of this is undoubtedly due to the fact that positive traditional views of the human/animal relationship are counterbalanced by negative ones in the same traditional thought.

 

In addition to the tensions between positive and negative views of the human/animal relationship in traditional Chinese thought are more mundane practical forces at work relating to the treatment of animals in China. For instance, although Confucianism does not have entirely favorable views toward animals, the influence of Confucian doctrine may have been impacted by direct attacks on it during the Cultural Revolution.[FN 176] Economics may be at work as well. Many abuses may be the result of the drive for prosperity and food security.[FN 177] In fact, the leadership of China fears an economic slowdown if it deals with animal cruelty issues.[FN 178] A governmental preoccupation with social stability and resistance to unofficial groups and activities also plays a role in resistance to change.[FN 179] There is nationalism involved too; some view concerns about animal treatment a foreign imposition from the West--a new form of imperialism.[FN 180] So the overall political and economic environment militates against activism for animal protection.[FN 181] And this is revealed in the dearth of law in China protecting animals.

 

 

There is very little Chinese law on animals. It is true, the Constitution of the People's Republic of China states that “‘[t]he state ensures the rational use of natural resources and protects rare animals and plants.”’[FN 182] This, however, fails to translate into noteworthy legislation on even the protection of wild animals. There is the Wildlife Protection Law of 1988, but it covers only rare and endangered wild animals.[FN 183] Moreover, this law has been argued to accomplish no more than provide a mechanism for exploiting natural resources for human purposes.[FN 184] It encourages, for example, the domestication and breeding of wildlife species for human use.[FN 185] In addition, this law is rarely enforced.[FN 186] Other than this Wildlife Protection Law, regulation of animal welfare or protection in China is sparse.[FN 187] There are regulatory documents relating to zoos and circuses issued by the State Forestry Administration and the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, and a set of “Moral Norms” issued by the Chinese Association of Zoological Gardens.[FN 188] There is, however, no general animal cruelty law189 and the Chinese Animal Husbandry Law lacks provisions on animal cruelty.[FN 190]

 

*431 Although there is no general law on animal cruelty or animal protection in China, there is nonetheless something of a hodgepodge of regulation of laboratory animals and experiments through a number of Chinese government agencies. The first regulation of animal experiments in China was the Chinese Regulations of Animal Experiments issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) in 1988 and revised in 2004. These standards are focused in large part on the “quality” of animals and experimental results.[FN 191] This is exposed by the stated purposes of the regulations, which “are . . . strengthening the administration of and guaranteeing the quality of experimental animals so as to meet the needs of scientific research, economic construction and social development.”[FN 192] This is further emphasized by the fact that monitoring of the quality of animals used in experiments is a main focus of the regulations.[FN 193] They also require wholesome food and provision of water to animals meeting specified standards, presumably to maintain the quality of animals and experimental results.[FN 194] The regulations do, however, have one specific provision dealing with the treatment of the animals stating that personnel may not “maltreat” animals.[FN 195] Violations of these animal experimentation regulations are handled through “administrative sanctions.”[FN 196]

 

In addition, National Standards of Laboratory Animals were issued in 1994 and revised in 2001, 2006, 2008, and 2010 by the State Technology Supervisory Bureau and contain a number of technical standards regarding, among other things, use of equipment and the environment in which animals are kept.[FN 197] Animal welfare and the 3Rs were “indicated” in the Opinions Regarding Development of Laboratory Animals during the *432 National Ninth Five-Year Plan Period (from 1996- 2000).[FN 198] In 2006, MOST created the Guideline on Humane Treatment of Laboratory Animals (the Guideline) that requires Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee review of experiments, proper care and environments for laboratory animals, a focus on pain and distress, and adequate veterinary care.[FN 199] The Guideline also adopts the 3Rs in animal research, but does not require compliance with them to obtain a license for animal experiments,[FN 200] requires that measures be taken to avoid unnecessary suffering in animals in labs, including meeting behavioral needs, and provides for non-criminal disciplinary penalties for violations.[FN 201] In addition, certain provinces have enacted laws to protect laboratory animals with Beijing having one of the strongest laws, referred to as Administrative Regulation of Laboratory Animals of Beijing, created in 1996 and revised in 2004.[FN 202] All of this brings one commentator to conclude that animal welfare is now well accepted by Chinese scientists and the government as an issue to be considered in animal experimentation.[FN 203] Nonetheless, animal laboratory science in China has been characterized as “uneven and rudimentary.”[FN 204]

 

The lack of a general animal protection law is not a result of a lack of effort by Chinese animal advocates. A proposed animal protection law, authored by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences along with overseas experts in animal welfare and legal scholars, has existed for a number of years[FN 205] and has been produced in three iterations.[FN 206] Two of these are translated into*433 English.[FN 207] This proposal was originally drafted to prohibit cruelty and negligent mistreatment of animals, but the latter prohibition was removed and the present proposal basically just protects against cruelty; it does not create a positive duty of care toward animals.[FN 208] All versions of the proposal protect wild animals, animals for economic use, animals used in agriculture, pets, laboratory animals and animals used in entertainment from cruelty.[FN 209] The draft law follows the Guiding Opinions described previously relating to animal experimentation, promotes the 3Rs and states that unnecessary harm should not be caused to laboratory animals.[FN 210]

 

Methods of slaughter would be required to conform to humane standards, including the requirement of stunning before killing, under the proposal.[FN 211] These requirements for slaughter would bring Chinese law into conformance with OIE requirements in this respect.[FN 212] Abandonment of animals would be an offense under the draft law.[FN 213] While eating of dogs has become a contentious issue in China and in an early draft of the proposal use of dogs for food was prohibited, all published versions of the proposal have left this issue to local determination.[FN 214] This law has not made much progress in moving toward passage and its present status is its submission to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in March 2010. There is, however, some discussion of a proposal to amend Chinese law relating to wild animals that would provide for some additional protections of animals from cruelty.[FN 215]

 

*434 While there have been efforts toward a general animal protection law and there is some regulation of animal experiments, China is best characterized as not having addressed animal protection concerns in any serious fashion. The lack of substantial regulation of animal treatment is consistent with historically ambivalent Chinese attitudes toward animals; although such ambivalence does not appear consistent with many of the teachings of Buddhist and Taoist thought.

 

 

Despite the traditional lack of concern for animals and the poor conditions for animals that prevail in China, attitudes prevalent in Chinese culture appear to be shifting toward amplified concern for animals. This seems, in part, to be generational. The young in China frequently have attitudes distinguishable from their elders on animal issues and have more compassion for the disadvantaged.[FN 216] As an example, eating dogs is becoming increasingly controversial, especially among the young.[FN 217] Animal protectionists are now some of the most active interest groups in China[FN 218] and one of the primary aims of these activists is to promote education on animal protection.[FN 219] Animal issues are, in fact, igniting “a cultural war in China, pitting old against young, urban against rural, and those who respect tradition against those who recognize the need for change.”[FN 220]

 

This cultural conflict is evidenced by an emerging and lively academic and public debate on animal rights and welfare fueled by highly publicized incidents of animal cruelty, the prevalence of cruel practices in agriculture in China, economic advances, and the influx of new ideas and activism on the environment.[FN 221] For *435 instance, Professor Qui Renzhong authored an article on animal protection in China that initiated considerable and sometimes rancorous discussion.[FN 222] Renzhong's position, however, is not radical by Western standards and advocates nothing more than a gradualist approach to improving animal treatment.[FN 223] Nonetheless, among the responses to Professor Renzhong was one from Professor Zhoa Nanyuan who accused those advocating for animals of being “anti-humanity” and “foreign trash,” and argued that such advocacy was Western neo-imperialism.[FN 224] Professor Nanyuan's position is based on several seemingly counterfactual contentions. First, he asserts that the interests of animals and humans are irreconcilably opposed.[FN 225] Second, he relies on the claim, rather unambiguously contrary to modern science, that animals do not have pain and emotions.[FN 226] But this debate has not ended; other academics have responded to Professor Nanyuan rejecting his arguments.[FN 227]

 

Social science in China has joined the dialog. Considerable research on Chinese students' views on animal protection issues is collected in an article by Zu Shuxian, Peter J. Li, & Peifeng Su. In the article they review, among others, a 1998 study by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) of Chinese college students that revealed many favorable attitudes toward better treatment of animals and found the results to be similar to a study performed in the United States ten to fifteen years earlier.[FN 228] This IFAW study found that 93.6% of the students said that animals experience suffering and pain, and 93.7% thought animals had emotions of sadness and happiness.[FN 229] Later scholarship has confirmed these results. A 2002 study found that 97.8% of respondents said animals could feel pain and 96.1% said animals had emotions.[FN 230] A 2003 follow-up study *436 found that 98.2% of respondents said animals had pain and 96.4% said they had emotions.[FN 231] Other results from these 2002 and 2003 studies showed that only 2.7% and 2.5 % thought animals existed for human use, 92.4 and 93% said that the welfare of animals deserved respect and equal consideration, 95% and 93.7% philosophically supported animal protection activities, and 48.2% and 51% said they were willing to participate in animal protection organizations.[FN 232] Similar attitudes among Chinese students have been found in another recent study by Gareth Davey.[FN 233] And this is not just a phenomenon of Chinese students; concern about animal treatment has been found to be widespread in Asia.[FN 234] The news on developing attitudes toward animals in China is, however, not all good. A study of Chinese attitudes on use of wild animal products, found that less than half of the Chinese surveyed held strong conservation views concerning wild animals.[FN 235]

 

These evolving attitudes on animals in China have translated into the creation of new animal protection organizations.[FN 236] This animal protection activism includes large scale opposition to bear bile farming[FN 237] and these efforts have been aided by celebrities. Yao Ming has become involved in animal issues, opposing bear bile farming and endorsing a *437 sanctuary for bile bears.[FN 238] Yao Ming is also now joined by other celebrities, including pop singer Yu Kewei, artist Ai Weiwei, actress Sun Li, and Jackie Chan, who have partnered with Chinese animal welfare activists to increase awareness of mistreatment of animals in China.[FN 239]

 

Further evidence of increased animal protection activism is exhibited by several recent cases of citizen rescues of dogs from the trade in dog meat. Animal advocates have blockaded a number of shipments of dogs to be used for food and have rescued the dogs.[FN 240] One of these shipments involved 580 dogs crammed into a single truck.[FN 241] This event has been described as “a rare successful case of social activism in China, where authorities are waging a brutal crackdown on dissent.” It has also been said that the “blockade may be more remarkable for what it shows about changes in Chinese society over the past decade as fantastic economic growth has bred a middle class with new sensibilities.[FN 242]

 

What, in addition to economic advances, may be propelling this leap in Chinese attitudes? Many reasons have been cited. “Rational use” policies that may ultimately lead to extinction of some species of wild animals may be stimulating the movement to *438 protect wild animals.243 It is also claimed that public health scares, including outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and avian flu, may be an influence in the movement to change the treatment of livestock.244 External economic pressure on China cannot be ignored; concern exists that consumers may demand changes in Chinese practices or not buy Chinese products.245 The increasing popularity of companion animals may also play a role in changing attitudes toward animals.246 Recent high profile animal cruelty cases brought to public attention affect public views and fuel debate as well.247The developing animal welfare community is a further engine of change,248 as is celebrity involvement in animal issues. Progress has been great enough that it has been argued that the Chinese animal protection movement has developed to the point where Western animal protection groups can stand aside and Chinese activists can fully take charge of pressing for change.249 Unfortunately, however, the fact is that the amount of animal abuse and exploitation is increasing in China notwithstanding these burgeoning attitudinal advances.250 Nonetheless, the base of animal advocates is growing in China, is taking action and can be expected to continue in efforts to press for change in the treatment of animals in China.

 

South African culture is diverse, ranging from native African, to white European, to Indian and beyond. Nonetheless, one thing that cannot be denied is that the abundance of unusual and endangered wild animals influences South African culture and presents many issues in the human/animal relationship in this country. Because of its vast animal “resources,” South Africa is enamored with “the consumptive use of wild animals.”[FN 251] South Africa is second only to the United States in trophy hunting[FN 252] and, among African nations, it is the biggest wildlife trader.[FN 253]

 

In addition, in analyzing South African culture, it is quite inconceivable to ignore Apartheid. Michele Pickover, in her book, Animal Rights in South Africa, perceives a link between apartheid and South African cultural views of animals. She posits that the same kind of socially conditioned hierarchical beliefs behind oppression of humans in apartheid can be observed in the way animals are abused and oppressed in South Africa.[FN 254] One example from the apartheid era revealing a direct connection between violence against animals and humans is military animal experiments in which animals were used to test weapons to be used on opponents of apartheid.[FN 255] Thus, these experiments were intended ultimately to cause harm to both humans and animals, not alleviate it.[FN 256] In addition, there is evidence of the vestiges of apartheid in certain present uses of animals in South Africa. The South African hunting industry caters to wealthy elites from the north.[FN 257] Moreover, the trophy hunting industry is white controlled and has not been changed by the process of *440 democratization.[FN 258] Private game farms are the fastest growing agricultural industry in South Africa and this benefits primarily wealthy landowners.[FN 259] It is not only in economic terms that the use of South Africa's wildlife reflects pre-apartheid norms; it also does so symbolically. The wild animal hunt can be seen as ritual; a symbol of the dominance of the white culture.[FN 260]

 

The violent vestiges of apartheid weigh upon issues of the treatment of animals in other ways as well. There is, for instance, recognition by some that the history of violence against humans and animals alike in South Africa provides fuel to those pushing for reform of South African laws relating to animals.[FN 261] This fuel is a product of the ideas that violence breeds violence and that there is a strong connection between violence against animals and violence against humans; all reasons given for the need to reform South Africa's animal protection laws.[FN 262] Thus, with respect to many issues, including issues relating to animals, one can view South African culture as one both splintered and shaped by its history of apartheid.

 

Given apartheid, it is not astonishing that the cross currents caused by native, Western and Indian cultural strands in South Africa sometime collide. For instance, ritual slaughter occurs in South African native religious culture.[FN 263] In addition, “informal slaughter” outside of traditional factory and other farms accounts for a significant portion of the killing of animals in South Africa, estimated at about 25% of cattle, 30% of sheep, and 10% of pigs, and occurs without monitoring or inspection.[FN 264] Some non-natives think these practices barbaric, while at the same time *441 they consider factory-farming slaughter humane.[FN 265] On the other hand, there are those in the South African native community who say that disrespect for animals is a Western import, not part of traditional African religious culture.[FN 266] It has been argued, for instance, that South African traditional culture can actually be a force supportive of and consistent with animal rights: “[a]nimal liberation is consequently a natural progression of our humanity, embodying the powerful concept of ubuntu.”[FN 267] Further, the need for improved protection of animals in South Africa has been championed by luminaries such as Desmond Tutu:

 

Another aspect of the human/animal relationship in South Africa is the recurrent theme that, as we see in other countries and cultures, even many of those in animal protection groups see themselves as a special species atop a hierarchy.[FN 270] And as in other cultures, one of the arguments made against pressing forward on animal issues is that those pushing for animal rights care more for animals than humans. [FN 271]

 

Regardless of the cultural rifts relating to agricultural and other uses of animals, like trophy hunting, industrialized factory *442farming is expanding in South Africa.[FN 272] Ironically, one reason for this expansion is greater regulation of the animal agriculture industry in Europe that is pushing animal production to the south where there is little or no regulation, thereby increasing animal suffering.[FN 273] Along with these changes, the power of agricultural corporations is rising, as Western fast food companies increase the use of agricultural animals in South Africa.[FN 274] These Western food production and distribution corporations are seen by some as neo-colonialists in South Africa.[FN 275]

 

As a general proposition, Pickover argues that the people of South Africa seem, at this time, to be largely unconcerned about the protection of animals from exploitation.[FN 276] Despite this dreary view, modern animal protection and rights organizations are calling for changes to South African law, as is the South African Veterinary Foundation,[FN 277] and there are those who are also pushing for a constitutional provision protecting animals.[FN 278] Some of these South African organizations are challenging, based in part on the modern science of ethology, the hierarchical view of the relation of humans and animals that underpins present uses and treatment of animals.[FN 279]

 

Moreover, there are those, like Pickover, who argue that issues like factory farming of animals are social justice issues that need to be addressed in South Africa.[FN 280] Mantsadi Molotleg, for example, is one of those struggling against the currents of hierarchy and oppression of animals in South Africa. Tying the *443 history of apartheid to the new fight on behalf of animals, she relates:

Pickover adds:

What we see in South Africa are rifts and divides in its culture, or perhaps better “cultures,” relating to the human/animal relationship. Not that there are no such rifts and divides in other cultures reviewed earlier; but here there is a recent and painful history that feeds these rifts and divides. And this history plays a role in its present animal law and will likely have an impact on its future.

 

 

As elsewhere in the world, animals are property in South Africa.[FN 283] Also like many other countries, there are some statutory protections for animals. The general animal protection *444 law is the South African Animal Protection Act (SAAPA).[FN 284] This statute defines animals to include domestic and wild animals.[FN 285] Substantively, SAAPA contains a long list of actions that are violations of the law and many include the typical animal welfare legislation “unnecessary suffering” or the like language. In particular, violations of the law can occur from intentional acts like overdriving, overloading, or cruelly kicking animals; from confining, tethering, or chaining animals in a way causing unnecessary suffering; from inciting an animal to attack another animal; from acts of omission like starving, underfeeding, or denying water to an animal; from keeping animals in a dirty or parasitic condition; and from abandoning animals in circumstances where it will cause unnecessary suffering.[FN 286] Notwithstanding these provisions, Pickover notes that SAAPA does not prevent the beating of animals.[FN 287] Penalties for violations of SAAPA include fines, imprisonment of up to one year and, interestingly, until 1997, whippings of up to six strokes for aggravated violations.[FN 288] Those convicted can also be prohibited from owning animals.289 Animal fighting, breeding animals for fighting and training animals for fighting are prohibited.[FN 290] Penalties relating to animal fighting are stiffer than for other violations and can include up to two years in prison.[FN 291] Officers of any society for prevention of cruelty to animals may be given enforcement powers, including the power to arrest, by a district magistrate.[FN 292] The Minister of Justice is also given power to make regulations under this law.[FN 293]

 

*445 South African law also prescribes methods of slaughter in the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act.[FN 294] In addition, there are Codes for the care of agricultural animals prescribed by the Livestock Welfare Coordinating Committee, a non-governmental organization (NGO).[FN 295] The code relating to handling and transport of livestock, for example, provides recommendations relating to, among other things, the size of enclosures for animals, feeding and watering of animals, use of equipment to drive animals, and methods of handling animals.[FN 296]

 

Another statute of significance relating to animals in South Africa is the Performing Animals Protection Act (PAPA).[FN 297] The law covers exhibition and training of performing animals and guard dogs.[FN 298] To exhibit or train animals one must get a license from a Magistrate after making application for the license.[FN 299] One might think having a judicial officer as a licensing official is odd; so did the Constitutional Court of South Africa in a recent decision finding this aspect of PAPA an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers and giving Parliament eighteen months to remedy the defect in the law.[FN 300] Police officials have the authority to enter and inspect places where exhibition or training of animals is undertaken, and obstruction of police in executing these duties is an offense with a penalty of up to R4000 or twelve months imprisonment, which is the penalty generally provided for violations of this act.[FN 301] Horse, dog, and bird shows are excluded from the provisions of the law.[FN 302]

*446 What about regulation of animal experiments in South Africa? There is no statute in South Africa dealing specifically with animal experiments.[FN 303] Nonetheless there is an industry self-regulatory code that provides for committees to review proposed experiments.[FN 304] This can be seen as a peer review system since none of the members of these committees must come from animal protection organizations.[FN 305] Note, not surprisingly, that this industry code is voluntary. As a result, unscrupulous scientists have attempted to take advantage of the lack of mandatory rules on animal experiments in South Africa by approaching South African scientists about performing experiments not permitted in their home countries.[FN 306] Yet another result of the lack of real regulation of experiments is that there is use of wild captured primates in South African experiments.[FN 307]

 

With just three major statutes of some considerable vintage, it has been argued that the government of South Africa is evading its responsibilities on animal issues by advocating continued status quo exploitation of animals and commercial use of its animal “resources.”[FN 308] Pickover argues that the government is just “a conduit for policies and legislation which allow exploitive industries to continue unhindered.”[FN 309] In the eyes of the government, animals are simply resources from which profits are extracted; ethical issues are not considered.[FN 310]

 

Several observations can be made. South Africa is anything but a monolithic culture; there are historical, social, and racial tensions embedded in its culture. There is the history of apartheid, with its violence and oppression that burns in the consciousness of South Africans. There are racial divides that include the clash between Western culture, native African culture and Indian culture. These cultural collisions may be viewed as *447 having a role in its law (or lack thereof) relating to animals. Existing laws are products of the apartheid era and have not, in the view of many, been revised as they should be. Indeed, in light of the recent decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on PAPA, the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries “has embarked upon a robust legislative review process in which a number of Acts, including pieces of legislation pertaining to animal welfare are under review.”311 Nonetheless, it may be that the many cultural frictions in South Africa are at work in the ongoing stagnation in animal-related law in South Africa. Some in the native African population see worries about animals as stemming from Western cultural imperialism; others see them as hypocritical given, for example, that Western factory agriculture can be viewed as more cruel to animals than traditional practices; others see native culture as a foundation for progress on animal issues. On the other side are Europeans who are sometimes quite critical of native African practices and traditions. This admixture of conflicting perspectives and views may contribute to the fact that at this point there are only three fairly old statutes relating to protection of animals. Nonetheless, there are those striving vigilantly to change the law in South Africa and, perhaps, the fault lines of cultural conflict can be bridged and progress made.

 

In Istanbul, one sees many stray animals, mostly cats. Some seem well fed; others not. And as we will see, there is considerable controversy over what should be done with stray animals in Istanbul, particularly dogs. Turkey is overwhelmingly Muslim with 99% of the population identifying as Muslim.[FN 312] But *448 unlike some majority Muslim countries it has a history of strict secularism in its government, although the present ruling party has Islamist roots and there are those who see secularism being squeezed out of Turkish society by the present regime as is reflected in recent unrest and protests.[FN 313] I use Turkey as an example in discussing animal issues and Islamic culture because it is a democracy and because it a country presently publicly debating new legislation relating to the treatment of animals.

 

Islam is a religion that addresses in some detail the nature of animals and their role in the world. It is said that God created animals and has provided for all, so animals are to be given an equitable share of the resources of the earth as a birthright.[FN 314] They, like humans, are also described as being “communities:” “[a]ll the beasts that roam the earth and all the birds that wing their flight are but communities like your own. We have left out nothing in the book. They shall all be gathered before their lord.”[FN 315] Moreover, animals have a consciousness of God and adore and worship him.[FN 316] Given this consciousness of God, it is not surprising that animals are said to have souls in Islam,[FN 317] *449 although there is some controversy over whether animal souls are eternal.[FN 318] Along with souls, animals are said to have emotional lives.[FN 319]

 

There are even passages of the Qur'an where animals are described as having the faculty of speech and the ability to communicate directly with some humans-- there are talking ants in one verse, discussions of the speech of other animals elsewhere, and human learning and understanding of the speech of birds.[FN 320] Shi'ite Hadiths contain instances where Mohammad and Imams are shown able to speak to animals and there are rare instances of this in Sunni Hadiths.[FN 321] Consistent with these ideas is the idea that humans can learn from animals.[FN 322]

 

Certain animals are blessed, like camels, horses, and bees, while others, like cats and dogs, are associated with the “evil eye.”[FN 323] Indeed, dogs are traditionally thought to be unclean,[FN 324] although there are those who believe that this is a misinterpretation of Islamic sources.[FN 325] Pigs are not well regarded and are believed to have poor moral character.[FN 326]

 

Doctrine on human use of animals coincides with that of Western culture; animals were created for the use of humans for *450food, clothing, work and adornment.[FN 327] Use of animals is, however, only to occur when necessary,[FN 328] and in using animals, humans are to be kind, compassionate and merciful.[FN 329] But the level of concern to be given animals is not as great as is to be given to humans.[FN 330] Meat eating is explicitly permitted,[FN 331] but is not encouraged or even recommended.[FN 332] Hunting for sustenance is also permitted.[FN 333] Although sport hunting is not permitted, animal sacrifice is, but the meat from sacrificial killing is to be provided to the needy.[FN 334] While there is some debate on this issue, animal sacrifice has been said not to be a pillar of Islam and is not required on the Hajj.[FN 335]

 

*451 Like other Abrahamic religions, Islam places humans atop the hierarchy of God's creation.[FN 336] This hierarchical view, as in Judeo/Christian doctrine, is a reflection of acceptance of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being.[FN 337] Human uniqueness in Islam is attributed to several allegedly unique human characteristics: the human ability to make moral decisions[FN 338] and man's spiritual power or volition.[FN 339] In God's hierarchy, man is vice-regent of the earth, but this power is to be exercised through stewardship.[FN 340] As a part of this stewardship humans are granted power over and are entitled to use animals.[FN 341] But, as noted above, there are limits on the appropriate use of animals by humans: “use of animals by man should be out of necessity and ‘done with compassion, humility and loving care’ as opposed to ‘malevolence, avidity[,] or greed for creature comforts or self-indulgence.”’[FN 342] Thus, although animals cannot be said to have “rights” in Islam, humans nonetheless do have obligations relating to animals[FN 343] and acts of charity toward animals are rewarded by God.[FN 344]

 

There are many specific requirements for treatment of animals in Islamic doctrine. Animals must be provided proper food and water;[FN 345] animals must have clean resting and watering places;[FN 346] animals must be kept clean and healthy;[FN 347] humans are required to spend time, energy, and money to care for their animals;[FN 348] male and female animals should be placed together in *452 mating season;[FN 349] animals are not to be insulted or cursed;[FN 350] animals are not to be overburdened or overworked;[FN 351] harmful objects may not be placed with animals;[FN 352] humans must not cause avoidable harm to or torture animals;[FN 353] hunting cannot be done with tools that break bones;[FN 354] at slaughter, animals should be given water and taken to slaughter with “care and tenderness;”[FN 355] and young animals should not be killed within the sight of their mother.[FN 356]

 

Given these and other obligations of the Muslim religion, there is controversy over whether modern intensive farming methods are consistent with Islamic teachings.[FN 357] This is because shackling and hoisting animals would seem to violate Islamic rules on slaughter, keeping of animals in small cages also may be a violation of Islamic tenets and modern agribusiness mutilates animals in violation of Islamic law.[FN 358]

 

Vivisection is permitted in Islam with restrictions. One constraint comes from the stricture that intentionally causing pain to or disfigurement of an animal is not permitted in Islam.[FN 359] Given this general rule, even Muslim thinkers at the forefront of animal issues believe that experiments can be done so long as there is no pain or disfigurement.[FN 360] And in performing experiments, the issue in Islam is the intent of the person doing the experiment.[FN 361] The result of these principles is that “any kind of experimentation on animals becomes ethical or legal *453 according to the intention of the person who performs it. If animals are not intentionally caused pain or permanently disfigured, and if other animals or humans would benefit, then animal research is permissible in Islam.”[FN 362] But under Islamic tenets experiments must be “absolutely essential” and must be done by competent and conscientious scientists for the promotion of knowledge, not for commercial gain.[FN 363]

From what we have seen of mainstream Muslim thought, animal rights theory stands a great distance outside the mainstream, as it does in nearly all other cultures.[FN 364] Rather, an ethic of stewardship, as in Western culture, is the dominant view.[FN 365] Nonetheless, there are some modern voices, like those of Basheer Ahmad Masri, Said Nursi, and Hakim Archuletta, who take fairly strong favorable positions toward animal protection[FN 366] and there is a recent book by Sarra Tlili that presents a non-anthropocentric view of the Qur'an.[FN 367] The most compassionate voices in Islam tend to come from the Sufi tradition,[FN 368] which has considerable influence in Turkey,[FN 369] the laws of which are analyzed below. But in general, Muslim attitudes toward animals have not changed in recent times and remain largely in the tradition described above.[FN 370] Those with non-traditional views have often been influenced by Western thought and those *454 making Islamic arguments for vegetarianism remain far outside the norm.[FN 371]

 

 

How is all of this reflected in the beliefs of Turks about animals and in the reality for animals in Turkish culture? Claudette Vaughan argues Turks tend to view animals as below humans and feel free to mistreat those below them.[FN 372] It has also been said that “‘[t]he first problem is that in Turkey animals are seen as commodities and are viewed purely in terms of financial value. The second is that stray animals and pets are viewed differently”’ from other animals.[FN 373] Moreover, the ordinary person on the street in Turkey does not understand that animals have pain and emotions like humans.[FN 374] Therefore, common attitudes in the Turkish population are not focused on the plight of animals, regardless of the Sufi influence in the country.

 

Not unpredictably, the results of these views are not auspicious for animals. Stray animals are poisoned or even shot by municipalities; some authorities neuter them and release them in unfamiliar territory or just let them loose in the countryside where they will starve.[FN 375] Endemic corruption has been described as the source of these failures.[FN 376] One very disheartening practice in Muslim countries is the torrent of blood in annual animal sacrifices on the holiday called the Feast of the Sacrifice, the Eid al-Adha, which occurs throughout the Muslim world including Turkey.[FN 377] It has been said of this celebration that “Muslim neighborhoods run red with the blood of sacrificed *455 animals.”[FN 378] This practice has been said to not actually be an Islamic one, but a remnant of Arab pre-Islamic practices.[FN 379] Factory farming continues apace in Turkey,[FN 380] as do documented incidents of cruelty in Turkish slaughterhouses.[FN 381] While there is concern among some scientists about ethics in animal experiments in Turkey, invasive and painful experiments continue,[FN 382] while the procurement of animals for use in animal experiments appears to be on the increase.[FN 383] So the reality for animals in Turkey presents many serious animal treatment issues that, among other things, have raised concern in the EU regarding Turkey becoming a member of the EU.[FN 384]

 

 

Despite the conditions of animals in Turkey, there is a fairly wide-ranging law on the protection of animals in Turkey, the Turkish Animal Protection Law (TAPL).[FN 385] Article 4 of TAPL states a number of general principles, including: “[a]ll animals are born equal and have a right to life within the framework of *456 the provisions of this law” and domestic animals have “the freedom to live according to the living conditions specific to their species.”[FN 386] These “equality,” “right to life,” and “freedom” concepts are quite limited, however, since the use of animals in agriculture and experimentation is permitted under the “framework” of the law. TAPL further provides that ownerless animals should be “supported” in the same way as those of owners.[FN 387] Under Article 5, owners of animals have a duty to see to their animals' ethological needs and to care for their health--this is an affirmative duty; it is not just a prohibition of cruelty. Regardless of the acts of some governmental authorities described earlier, killing ownerless or incapacitated animals is prohibited under Article 6 of TAPL. Instead, ownerless animals are to be taken to a shelter and neutered, vaccinated, and released back where they originated.[FN 388] In Article 8, surgical procedures to alter the appearance of animals are prohibited, as are procedures like removing claws or vocal cords.

 

Animal testing is regulated in Article 9 of TAPL. This Article, which is limited to medical and scientific testing, requires animals in experiments to be cared for and sheltered in a “suitable manner.” Institutions performing experiments must have ethics committees, which are to operate in accord with regulations authored by government agencies.[FN 389] Regulations have, in fact, been propounded by the Ministry of the Environment and Forestry and these regulations, along with TAPL, effectively require that the 3Rs be followed by experimenters.[FN 390]

 

A hodgepodge of other issues is dealt with in TAPL. The use of animals in film, advertising, demonstrations, or similar activities is covered by Article 10 and is to be conducted in a way that does not cause pain and suffering. Activities of this kind can only be done with permission of the government, which is to have *457 regulations on this issue.[FN 391] Article 11 prohibits pitting live animals against one another. Slaughter is to be carried out in the “least painful manner possible” under Article 12. Intentional mistreatment of animals is banned in Article 14. Article 15 requires that provincial animal welfare committees be established. These committees are to identify animal treatment problems, and create five- and ten-year plans relating to animal welfare, as well as support and develop animal shelters.[FN 392] Article 18 establishes volunteer Local Animal Welfare Officers who are to take responsibility for ownerless animals in the local area. In a rather unusual provision, time is required to be provided for animal educational programing on television and radio.[FN 393] Zoos are controlled under regulations required by Article 22. Penalties are provided for in the form of fines for violations of the law.[FN 394]

 

This law can be viewed as largely consistent with many principles of Islamic culture, though perhaps not going as far in protecting animals as one might expect given the Sufi influence in Turkey. Underlying principles concerning animals' right to life and the right to live according to the nature of each species conforms to Islamic teachings on the nature and role of animals in Islam, to principles of compassion and kindness, to the idea that God provides for both humans and animals, and to the concept that humans must share the resources of the earth with animals. Principles of kind and compassionate treatment are also echoed in prohibitions of intentional cruelty, mistreatment of animals, and animal fighting. Nonetheless, since Muslim religion and culture explicitly allows the use of animals for food, adornment, and work, Turkish law allows such uses presumably within the parameters of compassion, kindness, and so on as required in Islamic doctrine. The Islamic prohibition on disfiguring animals is expressed in provisions prohibiting practices like surgical declawing and removal of vocal cords. Nonetheless, animal experimentation provisions do not appear to conform to Islamic tenets since experiments, though subject to *458 ethical committee review, are not simply prohibited where painful or disfiguring as one can argue is required by Islam.[FN 395]

 

Unfortunately, TAPL does not seem to be widely enforced, penalties for violations are minor, and there are many abuses of animals in Turkey. For instance, most cities have not complied with the law requiring capture, neuter, and release of stray animals.[FN 396] Also, as noted above, penalties for violations of the law are light and do not create a criminal record in the offender.[FN 397] Indeed, Animal Rights Federation President Ahmet Kemal Senpolat states that violations of the present law are treated as mere petty offenses, like “smoking in an enclosed area or shouting on the street,” adding “[h]ow can a country like this expect to be accepted as a member of the European Union.”[FN 398]

 

There is nonetheless considerable activism in Turkey for reforms to the laws relating to animals.[FN 399] In fact, a political party has been formed to bring issues relating to the rights and protection of animals into the political discussion.[FN 400] As a part of the present reform agenda in Turkey, a proposal for amendments to TAPL was submitted to the Turkish Parliament.[FN 401] Some of the changes in this proposal included setting new fines for certain violations of TAPL as well as providing for prison sentences for some violations of the law. For instance, imprisonment of up to two years was provided for causing an animal's death by torture and imprisonment of up to one year for having sexual relations with animals.[FN 402] It is interesting to note that the second strictest penalty under the proposal related to sexual relations with *459 animals while many other acts of cruelty and overworking of animals are only punishable with fines.[FN 403]

 

Considerable opposition developed relating to this proposed law, led by animal protection and rights groups that objected to, among others, provisions dealing with stray animals that would put strays in a “natural park.” It is thought that this would have the effect of causing starvation and disease among these animals.[FN 404] The concern here is a real and historic one. In 1910, to clean up Istanbul, thousands of stray dogs were rounded up and sent to an island off Istanbul to starve.[FN 405] The mournful howls of these animals could be heard in Istanbul.[FN 406] Present-day activists saw this proposed new law as a potential repeat of this cruel policy.[FN 407] Note also that the issue of these stray dogs unearths issues relating to the traditional negative view of dogs in Islamic culture. In any event, as a result of public outrage over this proposal, it has been reported that the proposal was withdrawn in October 2012 and that a new proposal was being discussed among government and animal protection organizations.[FN 408] Nonetheless, according to the official website of the Turkish Parliament, the proposal is still pending.409Thus, the future course of animal law in Turkey is presently uncertain and subject to ongoing debate.

 

Aspects of what is observed in the relationship between humans and animals peculiar to a culture are what I will refer to as “cultural solipsism” with respect to this relationship. Let me define what I mean by “cultural solipsism.” Every culture has a lens through which it views the world--a collective viewpoint; a distinctive window through which it gazes at the world. This perspective creates a shared reality for the culture and a framework determining how the culture and individuals in the culture see their relationship with all aspects of the world, including other cultures, humans generally, the environment, and, crucially for present purposes, animals. As a metaphor, one could say that each culture views the world through a peculiar cultural lens. The way the world appears in each culture depends on how that lens is shaped and ground. And since each individual culture perceives the world through its own distinctive lens, I will refer to this reality of viewing the world through this peculiar cultural lens as “cultural solipsism”[FN 410] and to this particular lens as the “Culturally Solipsistic Lens.”

 

An example of the concept of cultural solipsism can be taken from an unlikely source--an article by Robyn MacCallum on Australian children's picture books.[FN 411] In this article, MacCallum discusses one way of describing cultural solipsism through, among other things, an analysis of the picture book, The Bunyip of Berkeley's Creek, by Jenny Wagner.[FN 412] In this book a mythical creature, a Bunyip, is searching for his identity.[FN 413] In his quest the Bunyip asks a Wallaby, an Emu, and a man what a Bunyip looks like.[FN 414] The Wallaby and the Emu describe how the *461 Bunyip differs from them as, for example, having “horrible feathers,” or “horrible fur,” or “horrible tails.”[FN 415] The man, on the other hand, has a different answer; he says that Buyips do not look like anything since they do not exist.[FN 416] The Bunyip's search for identity only ends when the Bunyip meets another bunyip whom he realizes is like him.[FN 417]

 

This story is an example of cultural solipsism. The Wallaby, the Emu, and the man all view the Bunyip from a perspective of difference--how the Bunyip looks or whether the Bunyip really exists.[FN 418] It is only when the Bunyip meets one of his own that similarities are seen and his identity is confirmed.[FN 419] Each of the creatures in the story views the Bunyip through its own lens. It is this way of looking at and analyzing the world that I refer to as cultural solipsism--the world as seen through a distinct lens in each culture.

 

One might say that this is simply another way of packaging “cultural relativism.” While what I refer to as cultural solipsism has some superficial similarities to cultural relativism, cultural solipsism has a different emphasis. Cultural relativism looks inward at a culture from the perspective of that culture.[FN 420] It is a method of anthropology meant to avoid applying cultural biases in analyzing different cultures by analyzing each culture from the perspective of that culture, leading extreme proponents to conclude that there are no ideas of right or wrong that transcend culture and no culture is justified in applying its beliefs or rules to other cultures.[FN 421] Cultural solipsism as described here is different; it refers to the outward looking aspect of culture--how does a culture view external reality and the world outside the culture? This is the lens of cultural solipsism.

 

*462 Examples of the impact of these Culturally Solipsistic Lenses on views of the human/animal relationship are legion. Western and Islamic cultures view the human/animal relationship as hierarchical. Eastern cultures, at least in theory, tend to look at the human/animal relationship in terms of a continuum. Hindu culture holds cows sacred. Dogs and cats have developed a special place in Western culture; not so in Islamic culture and certain Asian cultures. Jain culture rejects all violence against animals. And the list could be long extended. The point is that this Culturally Solipsistic Lens affects the way that different cultures view animals and this cultural solipsism often translates into peculiar laws (or the lack thereof) relating to animals in these different cultures.

 

Let us draw upon the previous analyses of the example cultures and laws, and some further examples of peculiarities of the cultures studied to illustrate the results of cultural solipsism in laws relating to animals. In Western culture pets have a special place; “other” animals are another category. Pets have a place by the hearth and are frequently protected by animal protection laws in ways that other animals are not. Some EU countries, like Austria, for example, prohibit certain surgical procedures and the use of certain equipment on pet animals.[FN 422] Switzerland requires training of dog owners.[FN 423] Even in animal experiments, animals that are typically pets are often given unique treatment in Western laws relating to animal experiments.[FN 424]

 

*463 Animals that are outside the pet club, “other” animals, are often given little or no protection as is the case under federal law in the United States, where agricultural animals are only covered by the Humane Slaughter Act and the Twenty-Eight Hour Law. In the EU, at least there are more substantial protections of these animals, like housing space requirements, limits on certain procedures and so on. These distinctions can be seen as a cultural divide born of the Atlantic.

 

The impact of Indian culture on animal law could not be more obvious. There are many laws that provide special protection of cows as sacred animals. The distinctive Indian constitutional provision requiring compassion toward animals can be viewed as connected to the Buddhist/Hindu/Jain concept of ahimsa. In the case of Chinese culture, while certain religious doctrines of dominant religions in China have aspects favorable to animals, the dominant view of animals in Chinese culture has been one of a historic lack of concern. And the results of this lack of concern are reflected in Chinese animal law, which is largely non-existent. But here we can also observe the apparent evolution of Chinese culture toward more concern for animals in the movement to enact laws to protect animals and the proliferation of animal protection organizations and activists. South African culture seems fractured on many animal issues. Is concern about animals cultural colonialism? Is there an indigenous culture of care for animals? Should South Africa follow Western ways of agriculture or are traditional practices preferable? These cultural fault lines may be reflected in a lack of change in animal-related laws in South Africa--consensus for reform may be a hostage of the history of apartheid, discrimination, and divisiveness. Those who advocate for reform in South Africa must navigate through this cultural minefield in their efforts to change the law.

 

*464 The imprint of Islamic culture on Turkish animal law and issues relating to animals now being discussed in Turkey is quite evident. Turkey has a fairly traditional sort of animal protection law similar to those in many Western countries. This is in line with the hierarchical Abrahamic underpinnings of Islam, which, like Christianity, permits the use of animals for human purposes, but counsels a kind of stewardship, which translates into requirements of “humane” treatment. One issue that seems peculiar to Turkey and is related to Islamic culture is the debate about stray dogs. How Turkey struggles to deal with this problem reveals the tension in Islam between the idea that dogs are unclean and the call for compassion.

 

So it is clear that cultures do impact the laws relating to animals that we find in different countries and are responsible for certain differences in their laws and in debates relating to animal issues. The peculiar Culturally Solipsistic Lens through which each culture sees its relationship with animals and by which its animal law is affected is not, however, the only way culture perceives and can affect the world of animals. It is my view that our cultural lenses are compound; there is another layer of the cultural lens through which all cultures see the world and the relationship between humans and animals--a universal layer in which there are common overarching moral, ethical, empirical, and other principles that apply to humans, animals, and other living things in general. I will refer to this aspect of the cultural lens as the “Universal Cultural Lens.”

This, of course, is quite contrary to a cultural relativist view of morality and values; instead what is posited is a set of moral, ethical, empirical, and other principles generally accepted across cultures. Some examples of principles that I argue should be viewed as accepted across cultures are ideas like: “torture of a sentient being is wrong” and “inflicting pain for its own sake is wrong.” While it is beyond the scope of this article to present a detailed argument to support the existence of these types of universal principles, the idea that there are certain universal moral and ethical principles across cultures finds corroboration in the work of philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, and legal scholars.

 

*465 In philosophy there are theories that claim the existence of a universal common morality applicable to everyone.[FN 425] For example, Tom Beauchamp propounds such a theory in which he defines “common morality” as “the set of norms shared by all persons committed to the objectives of morality. The objectives of morality . . . are those of promoting human flourishing by counteracting conditions that cause the quality of people's lives to worsen.”[FN 426] He further argues that this morality “is applicable to all persons in all places. And all human conduct is rightly judged by its standards.”[FN 427] Sisella Bok has made similar arguments concerning common moral values across cultures.[FN 428] As examples, Bok points to values like respect for and obedience to parents, the Golden Rule of treating others as you would like to be treated, societal norms limiting or prohibiting violence, and fairness and procedural rules like prohibitions on bearing false witness.[FN 429] These rules are argued to be essential to the viability of any society.[FN 430] Another philosopher, Bernard Gert, also propounds a theory of a common morality. His theory of common moral principles is founded on the idea that agreement on certain fundamental moral truths is a result of universal aspects of human nature.[FN 431] Among the common moral principles described by Gert are “[d]o not kill,” “[d]o not cause pain,” “[d]o not deprive of freedom,” and “[d]o not deprive of pleasure.”[FN 432]

 

In addition, there have been a number of studies in the psychological and sociological literature that reveal shared values across cultures. While these studies do not deny cultural differences in values, they find that people generally rank different sets of values in the same way across cultures. Shalom *466 Schwartz has written a number of articles on this subject. In one such study he and his coauthor, Anat Bardi, analyzed “values,” defined as “desirable, transsituational goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in people's lives,” across cultures.[FN 433] The authors divided a large set of these values into different categories, such as benevolence values, self-direction values, and universalism values. Subjects in the study were then asked to rank these different sets of values and it was found that the rankings of these values were consistent across countries around the globe and the relative importance of these values was also generally consistent across the different countries studied, although there was a lower level of agreement on relative importance of value types in certain African countries.[FN 434] The authors' broad finding is that “[t]here is a common pan-cultural baseline of value priorities” and that there is considerable agreement across societies in the importance of different values.[FN 435]

 

In explaining these findings, the authors state: “The observed pan-cultural similarity in value hierarchies implies that there are shared underlying principles that give rise to these hierarchies.”[FN 436] Going more deeply into this idea: “pan cultural similarities in value importance are likely to reflect the shared bases of values in human nature and the adaptive functions of each type of value in maintaining societies.”[FN 437] These similarities are explained by Schwartz and Bardi as group survival mechanisms. For group survival it is necessary that there be cooperative and supportive relations between members of primary groups.[FN 438] But good relations are not enough, individuals must be motivated to put in effort and time to do productive work and solve problems, and thus self-gratification is also valued across cultures so that individuals do not become *467 frustrated.[FN 439] Thus, it is argued by Schwartz and Bardi, along the same lines asserted by Sisella Bok, that similarities in views about certain values are necessary for all societies and groups to properly function.[FN 440]

 

Swartz has made similar findings in other studies. For instance, in 1994 Swartz found there to be considerable “consistency of motivational meaning across cultures.”[FN 441] In an earlier 1987 study Swartz and Bilsky found there were both similarities and differences in the way Israelis and Germans viewed and structured values.[FN 442]

 

“World Society” sociological theory (WS) also provides conceptual support for the existence of cross-cultural norms that diffuse throughout the world and influence the behavior of individuals, organizations and nation states across the globe. Under this theory, global social change, “most notably the diffusion of Western-style state policies,” is a consequence of global institutions and organizations as well as an “increasingly common world culture” that arose after World War II.[FN 443] The focus of WS has been described as follows: “world society scholars emphasize rationalization, universalism, belief in progress, and individualism as foundational cultural assumptions that undergird global discourse and organization. [citation omitted] This culture supports a very wide array of movements, initiatives and innovations but proscribes many others.”[FN 444] Some of the specific areas in which this world society and culture are said to be reflected are universal human rights law, environmental protection, models of citizenship, rationalized justice, socioeconomic development, and nation-building itself.[FN 445] The *468posited global culture has also been described as saturating “social life through law, organizations, religion, national identity, and even anti-globalization movements.”[FN 446] It is also argued that this global culture is “reflected in university curricula worldwide.”[FN 447] NGOs have played a substantial role in propagating this universal culture,[FN 448] as have the sciences and professions.[FN 449] While it could be argued that this posited “world culture” is simply an artifact of global cultural colonization by the West, world society theorists argue that it is not an ideology supported by the force of arms, but has developed autonomously around the globe.[FN 450]

 

The concept of a Universal Cultural Lens proposed here is an expression of the same kind of idea described in universalist moral theories, studies on commonality in value structures across cultures, and WS theory. The specific thought here is that there are moral, ethical, empirical, and other principles relating to animals that transcend individual cultures and apply across cultures. This is, of course, not uncontroversial and not everyone would agree with this thesis. We have seen, for example, that there are those who argue that protective attitudes toward animals are a kind of cultural colonialism forced upon different cultures by the dominant Western culture.[FN 451]

 

Notwithstanding this criticism and whatever the source of this world culture, we do see universal norms spreading worldwide in morality, ethics, and the law. For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is founded on the premise that “human rights” are not dependent on culture and that there are certain propositions everyone can agree on--the need to have food and shelter, to speak freely, to practice a chosen religion or lack thereof, to feel that one is not threatened by the *469 state and so on.[FN 452] Acceptance of certain universal principles across cultures is supported not only by the approval of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN,[FN 453] but also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[FN 454] and the Geneva Convention.[FN 455] And it is not only in the area of human rights that there is cross-cultural acceptance of moral, ethical, and legal principles; there are generally accepted international laws relating to climate change, chemical and other weapons, hazardous waste, hostage taking, organized crime, and many other subjects.[FN 456]

 

Universal principles are also now being formulated and advanced in the area of animal law. There are now international animal welfare guidelines agreed upon by representatives of cultures around the globe in standards propounded by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). The OIE is composed of and funded by 178 member countries and has the stated goal of improving animal health worldwide.[FN 457] Member countries represent every continent and myriad cultural and religious *470milieu.[FN 458] This organization has created recommendations and guidelines in the form of a number of codes on animal welfare in agriculture, transportation, and experimentation.[FN 459] In making these recommendations and guidelines, the OIE has explicitly recognized the influence of cultural differences on animal welfare issues by, among other things, explicitly addressing how Islamic Law is compatible with agricultural animal standards recommended by the OIE.[FN 460] While the OIE is far from being an abolitionist organization concerning animal use, the large number of member countries and success in reaching agreement on its existing codes, reveals the cultural breadth of acceptance of at least the principles expressed in those codes. Note as well, as we have seen in the laws of the countries analyzed here, laws relating to animal protection from entities as diverse as the EU, Turkey, India, and South Africa have many similarities. For example, animal protection laws from these entities all prohibit cruelty and the causing of “unnecessary pain and suffering” or the like. While one could argue that this is simply a result of Western cultural imperialism through the export of Western animal sensibilities in the form of laws with this language and these characteristics, it also can cogently be viewed as reflecting universal ethical sentiments across cultures, that is, universal acceptance of the principles reflected in these laws. Given all of these internationally agreed upon principles and the similarities in the laws of various countries, including those on animal issues, one can forcefully claim that there would be no such widely accepted legal norms were there not some universally accepted principles that are a part of a “world culture.”

 

*471 One might query why there is so much abuse and exploitation of animals, and such rudimentary laws protecting animals, if there are accepted and weighty universal principles applicable to the human/animal relationship. Indeed, Bok recognizes the problem presented to those arguing for universal values by the fact that we do not see such principles often followed in practice.[FN 461] Take the principle that “torture of a sentient being is wrong.” This is a principle that would seem a clear candidate for universal acceptance. Nevertheless, humans routinely violate this principle in animal experiments and agricultural practices, not to mention in behavior toward other humans. How can this be explained? First, one can see violations of universal principles as a defect in the Compound Cultural Lens, a surface of the lens where the Culturally Solipsistic Lens burns through the Universal Cultural Lens resulting in behavior contrary to universal principles. In the case of animal experiments, for instance, one could say that culturally solipsistic ideas about the inferiority of animals and the utilitarian “need” for these experiments have distorted the compound lens in a way that blocks the Universal Cultural Lens and its principle prohibiting torture from being implemented in practice. In the case of the use of animals in agriculture, one can see the Culturally Solipsistic Lens distorting the Universal Cultural Lens through both cultural ideas of inferiority of animals and cultural traditions relating to eating habits.

 

Second, one cannot discount plain human frailty, egoism, and hypocrisy. While we all would likely agree that lying for personal gain is wrong, who among us can claim to have never done so? Humans often violate what we would consider universal principles for personal advantage and utility maximization. Thus, I would argue that even widespread violations of generally accepted universal principles are not a defect in the proposed theory or those principles; rather, such violations are a defect in human culture or behavior. What it reveals for present purposes is that animal advocates must develop and disseminate forceful universal principles that humans will hopefully be reluctant to challenge or violate.

 

*472 So what are the concrete implications for animal advocacy of the Compound Cultural Lens composed of a Culturally Solipsistic Lens and a Universal Cultural Lens through which cultures perceive the relationship between humans and animals? A specific example will serve to illustrate some of the implications of the proposed perspective on culture and animal law and animal advocacy.

 

So how does all of this impact animal advocacy in a globalized world? What does the compound lens of human culture mean strategically for animal advocates? In the most general sense it tells us that we must tailor advocacy to meet the Compound Cultural Lenses of the world. This is a two-step process. First, it is necessary to understand the Culturally Solipsistic Lens of the culture being addressed and its implications for proposed animal advocacy, and tailor advocacy to the contours of this lens. Second, it is necessary to develop and expound universal cross-cultural principles that support the animal advocate's position.

 

Consider how this might be done in a particular instance--for example, in advocating for prohibition of bear bile farming in China. From the culturally solipsistic perspective, it must be recognized that bear bile is considered valuable in traditional Chinese medicine. And this results in 12,000 bears being kept for bile in China, Vietnam, and South Korea,[FN 462] as well as hunting of wild bears.[FN 463]

 

From the perspective of advocating for a ban on bear bile farming, what we have learned about Chinese culture relevant to this is that traditionally there has been little concern for animal welfare. Nonetheless, Chinese religious thought does have aspects favorable to animals. Moreover, there are changing attitudes in China, particularly among the young, and Chinese celebrities are becoming vocal on the issue of bear farming. From the perspective of our Culturally Solipsistic Lens, all of this would *473 suggest a number of tactics in advocacy on the bear bile farming issue. First, tie arguments, when possible, to traditional Chinese religious values. This may even help move older constituencies in the population. Second, focus advocacy on the young as much as possible due to nascent favorable attitudes. Third, make use of the new Chinese celebrities that have supported the ban and try to involve more such celebrities.

 

The second step, viewing the problem from the perspective of the Universal Cultural Lens requires development of generally accepted universal principles supporting a ban on bear bile farming. A number of these principles can be identified. The principle prohibiting torture discussed earlier would apply here. Another such general principle allied to the torture principle might be that “intentionally inflicting pain on a sentient creature is wrong.” This can be supported by scientific evidence establishing that excruciating pain is a typical result of bear bile farming. It might further be asserted that “inhibiting the freedom of movement of wild creatures is a wrong.” In the case of bear bile farming this principle can be made quite convincingly given that the bears are basically kept immobile. The wrongness of bear bile farming can also be supported by looking at the issue from a general human benefit perspective since science can also be pointed to asserting that there is no evidence of medical benefit from the use of bear bile. The suffering of humans caused by the negative emotions resulting from knowledge of bear bile farming could also be expressed. Moreover, pointing to the existence of international standards and principles on certain aspects of animal treatment, like those promoted by the OIE and NGOs, could also be a focus of the Universal Cultural Lens here. Indeed, this has effectively been done in connection with the proposed Chinese animal protection law.[FN 464] One can imagine how these principles would be presented to the public--the juxtaposition of a bear in the wild and one in captivity on a farm; describing or otherwise showing how the bear is caused pain, suffering, and disease in bile extraction; and revealing how this practice fails to meet general international standards for the *474 treatment of animals. It is undoubtedly possible to continue listing general principles that would support the end of bear bile farming, but for present purposes the forgoing provides an outline of the kind of universal principles and propositions that might be brought to the fore in advocacy on bear bile farming.

 

From this exercise, it is possible to identify three categories of universal principles or propositions that may be particularly useful in animal advocacy. First are what can be referred to as universal general ethical principles, like “torture of a sentient being is wrong.” Second are “human centered” principles like the idea that “violence against animals begets violence against humans.” Third are empirical or fact-based principles or propositions, those founded on the physical and social sciences, on the law and on principles propounded by organizations promoting the interests of animals. Examples of such propositions are the factual statements “cephalopods experience pain” and “OIE codes require . . .” While one may not be able to generate principles from all of these categories in each particular case of advocacy, this should certainly be the goal. Note also that these three categories are not mutually exclusive. A particular principle may fit into multiple categories. For instance, the principle “violence against animals begets violence against humans” can be seen as “human centered” and “empirical.”

 

The reality of our globalized world requires that animal advocacy be approached from a global, not a parochial perspective. The Compound Cultural Lens outlined in this article proposes a simple conceptual schema for meeting the realities of modern animal law and animal advocacy in this globalized world. It recognizes the peculiarities of cultures, posits that there are universal principles that apply across cultures, and acknowledges that these two perspectives must be blended in advocating for change in animal law. Hopefully this conceptual tool will serve as an aid in fashioning future strategies in animal advocacy campaigns.