Social work and speciesism.

Abstract

Jane Addams (1940) perhaps most prominent of founders of modern social work, describing impetus dedicate herself of others and develop Hull House, wrote, We been see a bull fight rendered in most magnificent Spanish style, where greatly my surprise and horror, I found that I seen, with comparative indifference, five bulls and many more horses killed (p. 85). Jane's companions were horrified immediately by needless killing, although Jane had not thought much about bloodshed. Later in day, however, the natural and inevitable reaction came and in deep chagrin I felt myself tried and condemned, not only by this disgusting experience, but by entire moral situation which it revealed... Nothing less than moral reaction following experience at a bull fight been able reveal me that so far from following in wake of a chariot of philanthropic fire, I been tied tail of veriest ox-cart of self-seeking (p. 86). Perhaps Jane Addams was a sentimentalist. After all, NASW Code of Ethics (NASW, 1996) describes primary mission of social work profession as being to enhance human well-being and help meet basic human needs of all (p. 1). There's no mention of bulls, horses, or any other animal species. Maybe Jane Addams's feeling for pain of animals was misguided emotion. Or it may be that Jane Addams, with her concern for these animals, can serve as an important role model for today's social workers. Social Work, Environment, and Oppressed Populations Meyer (1981) discussed noxious -isms, such as racism, sexism, ageism, jingoism, and militarism, that are woven into fabric of American society. These -isms by their nature tend marginalize those who do not fit under rubric of one's group. Witkin (1998) identified attention marginalized groups as a defining attribute of social work profession and stated that we must consider which groups profession is not serving. It is suggested here that profession should at least consider issue of speciesism. Speciesism is discrimination based on species, and social workers are urged reflect on and discuss issue of whether differential treatment based on species is justified. Furthermore, a core value of social work is appreciation and respect for inherent dignity and worth of all persons (NASW, 1996). It is worth deliberating over whether our treatment of other species, in places such as slaughterhouses, is associated with our own sense of dignity and self-respect. Many authors (Berger, 1995; Berger & Kelly, 1993; Hoff & Polack, 1993; McMain-Park, 1996) have emphasized importance of social workers becoming aware of and involved in environmental issues. Berger described environmental decay as the gravest threat our social welfare (p. 443). Animals are an essential component of our environment and a key element in maintaining ecological balance. Thus, a person-in-environment orientation warrants concern for our treatment of animals. There are many connections between our treatment of animals and environmental integrity; these touch on issues such as hunger, poverty, and war. Toffler (1975) suggested that most practical hope for resolving world's food crisis is a restriction of beef eating that will save billions of tons of grain. Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1972) reported that production of a pound of meat requires 40 100 times as much water as production of a pound of wheat. Altschul (1964) noted that in terms of calorie units per acre, a diet of grains, vegetables, and beans will support 20 times as many people as a diet of meat. Singer (1990) wrote that reduction of U.S. meat consumption by only 10 percent for one year would free about 12 million tons of grain for human consumption and added that amount of food wasted by slaughter of animals in affluent nations would be sufficient, if properly distributed, end both hunger and malnutrition throughout world. …