TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT: ‘Animalization’ and ‘dehumanization’ as psychological barriers to animal rights legal reform

A major issue for judicial reticence to grant animal rights is the belief in human exceptionalism. Judges generally hold an entrenched social and cultural mindset that humans are special and superior to animals. There are also additional concerns about animalization and dehumanization in relation to race, considering histories and legacies. Some judges are concerned that any extension of rights to animals will call into question the human status of marginalized humans.

MANEESHA DECKHA: There are now more than a handful of high-profile court cases where animal rights or­ganizations and advocates have sought legal personhood or other fundamental rights for animals, who are otherwise considered property by the law. Most of these cases have been unsuccessful. This article looks at the human psychological factors that make it difficult for animal rights arguments to succeed in court. It discusses how the belief in human superiority has resulted in the refusal by human judges in many countries to extend rights and the legal status of personhood to animals even though the law already recognizes other nonhumans, such as corporations, as legal persons with rights. The article also shows how concerns that extending rights to animals will animalize or dehumanize racialized peoples can be another psychological factor that prevents progressive animal law reform.

A major issue for judicial reticence to grant animal rights is general legal conservatism and the belief in human exceptionalism that judges betray in these and related cases. Judges are human and generally share with others an entrenched social and cultural mindset that most humans hold to some degree that humans are special and superior to animals. In addition to general human exceptionalism, this article argues that a further psychological block for judges to respond affirmatively to legal submissions asking them to place animals on more equal legal footing with humans can arise from concerns about exacerbating intra-human prejudices. Given histories and legacies of animalizing and dehumanizing certain human groups, particularly racialized peoples and peoples with disabilities, some judges will be concerned that any extension of rights to animals will call into question the human status of marginalized humans.

The article discusses how such concerns about animalization and dehumanization in relation to race were present in a recent high-profile case decided by the New York Court of Appeals involving the liberty interests of Happy, an elephant and long-time resident at the Bronx Zoo in New York. The article further argues that such con­cerns, which resulted in judges emphasizing human separation from animals, are misplaced. The dissociation of humans from animals is counterproductive to eliminating racism and intra-human prejudices and inequities. Affirming human proximity and kinship to animals — and thus putting a positive spin on animalization — in the legal system would be a more effective inclusive gesture for both humans and animals.

Animal advocates should recognize the psychological barrier animalization and dehumani­zation concerns can pose and address it in their advocacy, helping judges and others to see the mutual benefits across species by establishing human proximity to animals in law. Turn­ing to certain non-Western human worldviews and legal systems as models to better accept proximity to animals may be helpful for guiding Western legal decision-making regarding animals’ legal interests, as these legal systems generally emphasize kinship, connection, and interdependence with animals. SOURCE…

RELATED VIDEO: