This study describes the problems and difficulties in relationships between animal rights activists and their family members. According to the research, there are two phases to the family relationships of law-breaking and law-abiding animal rights activists: the joining and establishing phases. During the joining phase, activism played an intensive role in the deteriorating family relationships of both groups with their families. However, in the establishing phase, law-breaking activists were able to integrate family life with their activism, leading to the preservation of the relationship. On the other hand, to preserve family peace, law-abiding activists separated their activism from their family, leading to a deterioration in the relationship.
TALI INBAR-FROHLICH: This phenomenological research examined family relationships among ideological nonhuman-animal rights activists, while distinguishing between law-breaking and law-abiding activists. Analysis of semi-structured interviews with 30 activists highlighted two phases within the familial dynamics. During the joining phase, conflicts arose between the participants’ identities as activists and their identities as family members, creating a crisis in their relations with their parents and spouses. During the establishing phase, however, different familial dynamics developed among each group. The law-breaking activists were able to balance family life with their activism, ensuring the preservation of the relationship. By contrast, to try and maintain peaceful relations, the law-abiding activists kept their activism from their family, leading to a deterioration in the relationship. The findings are interpreted through literature dealing with the family dynamics of social activists in general, and animal rights activists in particular.
Animal rights activism has received increased attention over the last two decades, following 9/11 in the United States, after which certain actions carried out on behalf of nonhuman animals were classified as acts of domestic terrorism. This federal law defined the animal rights movement as an active threat of the highest level, and classified activism directed at businesses or individuals working with animals as domestic terrorism. Accordingly, animal rights activists are often painted as misanthropic and irrational people who prefer animals to their own species, reflecting the tendency of the establishment and the public to ignore the heterogeneity of animal rights activism. Such a discourse can be found frequently in the media, in academia , and even inside the animal rights movement, where organizations and activists, who are located at different places along the activism spectrum, are themselves prone to internal struggles and factionalism. At the same time, there have sometimes been compassionate and even supportive expressions towards what is seen as highly moral work and a legitimate expression of civil disobedience.
Activism can lead to objective consequences in areas like marital status and career, and subjective changes in areas like self-esteem and identity. Identity processes generate action preparedness, which generates action participation. The latter strengthens collective identity, which affects participants’ sense of personal identity. These processes can lead to the development of alternative “senses of self”. Individuals’ identities may be constructed according to their engagement in a particular action, and this may predict their intentions and behavior. For example, people who identify as environmentalists will volunteer for beach cleaning and people who identify as campaigners against traffic accidents are more likely to volunteer for the traffic police. Therefore, an activist identity that is reflected in this behavior might lead the authorities to perceive groups of “the usual suspects” who engage in such consistent protests.
Most activists share certain common characteristics. Scholars point to activists’ feelings of concern and empathy towards animals, the deep responsibility that they feel in the face of their suffering, and feelings of guilt in the face of the challenges to addressing the problem. The literature reveals a broad spectrum of animal rights activists who are ethically concerned for animals but are divided by goals and outlooks regarding the most legitimate way to achieve animal liberation. Law-breaking activism is often condemned by law-abiding activists, who argue that it is seen as extremism by the public, and as a result harms the long-term success of the animal rights movement . Law-abiders sometimes even try to distance themselves from lawbreakers. In contrast, those who actively face the risks involved in lawbreaking activity and the stigma associated with it believe that lawbreaking is the most effective and sometimes even the only legitimate way to advance their goals. These activities can include extortion attacks on researchers, cybercrimes, infiltration of research facilities, and attacks on labs or other facilities.
Though research has touched on the impact of activism on activists’ friends and families, it has hardly engaged directly with the impact of animal rights activism on the family relationships of activists. Among the studies which do touch on this issue are those which highlight the complexity of activists’ relationships with non-activist family members. The research shows that their activism has consequences for dynamics within the nuclear family – for example, relationship difficulties between activists and non-activist spouses, sometimes leading to divorce, and outside the nuclear family – for example, families avoiding events where vegan food is served. Recent research, which examined the family dynamics of law-breaking ideological animal rights activists from the family members’ points of view, found that, in breaking the law, activists gained support, praise, and sometimes even encouragement of parents and spouses. However, this research did not relate to the activists themselves regarding the impact of their activities on family relationships, and it did not cover law-abiding activists.
One prominent theory dealing with family patterns is the Family Communication Patterns Theory. The FCPT proposes that, to function optimally, families create a shared social reality (i.e., a shared understanding of one another) by combining two orientations – conversation and conformity. Families emphasizing conversation encourage members to share thoughts, feelings, opinions, and beliefs in an attempt to understand one another’s view of a topic. Families emphasizing conformity expect all family members to view a topic similarly. Combining these two orientations produces four communication patterns: Consensual families achieve shared reality by balancing high levels of both conversation and conformity. In these families, members often talk about their views and opinions, but typically an authority figure makes the final decision, with the expectation that everyone’s behavior will then conform.
Protective families rely heavily upon conformity to achieve shared reality, emphasizing deferral to a dominating family member’s view over conversation. In these families, conflict is generally regarded as negative and harmful, but because communication skills are neither valued nor practiced, these families often lack the necessary skills to engage productively in conflict resolution during disagreements. Pluralistic families emphasize conversation, putting little emphasis on conforming to a single view. Because of their emphasis on the free exchange of ideas and the absence of overt pressure to conform or obey, these families openly address their conflicts with one another and engage in positive conflict resolution strategies. Laissez-Faire families are less interested in sharing reality and thus emphasize neither orientation. Family members are highly individualistic and may appear disengaged. Because these families do not engage much in conversation with one another, they also tend to avoid conflict.
The research presented above describes the problems and difficulties in family relationships between activists and family members. However, because these studies did not distinguish between law-abiding and law-breaking activists, they provide only a partial picture. This distinction is especially important given that law-breaking actions on behalf of animals have increasingly been classified as forms of domestic terrorism, with family traditionally viewed as a potential rehabilitation agent for the law-breaking family member. As a result, there is room to explore the family dynamics of activists while taking into consideration the specific nature of their activism. The aim of the present research, therefore, was to examine law-abiding and law-breaking animal rights activists’ understanding of their family relationships. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEOS: