Great Ape Project Research Articles

In Search of an Alternative Biopolitics: Anti-bullfighting, Animality, and the Environment in Contemporary Spain by Katarzyna Olga Beilin

Reviewed by: In Search of an Alternative Biopolitics: Anti-bullfighting, Animality, and the Environment in Contemporary Spain by Katarzyna Olga Beilin Mary-Anne Vetterling Beilin, Katarzyna Olga. In Search of an Alternative Biopolitics: Anti-bullfighting, Animality, and the Environment in Contemporary Spain. Columbus: The Ohio State UP, 2015. Pp. 305. ISBN 978-0-81421-290-5. In Search of an Alternative Biopolitics: Anti-bullfighting, Animality, and the Environment in Contemporary Spain fuses Animal Studies with Environmental Studies to produce a brilliant interpretation of contemporary Spain. On the book's cover, there is an image of a bull outside the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao created by painted semi-naked human bodies that is a striking visual representation of one of the principal motifs of this study: the bullfight as symbolized by both human and non-human animals. Beilin's extensive scholarship on the subject enlightens the reader on the various ways in which the bullfight can be used to interpret Spanish culture in the past and in the present. She pays special attention to the human and the non-human animal and demonstrates the parallels between the cruel mistreatment of both humans (women, the poor, and undocumented aliens) and animals in daily life and war to reveal the biopolitics in Spain, past, present, and future. Attention is also paid to necropolitics, biotechnology, biocapitalism, bioeconomy, the Holocene and the Anthropocene. There is also an important discussion about Genetically Modified Organisms in Spain. In addition to discussing major Spanish thinkers such as Larra, Ortega y Gasset, Américo Castro, Unamuno, Noel, Savater, Casal, and Riechmann, she backs up her ideas with theories by Foucault, Latour, Haraway, Morton, Nussbaum, Agamben, Esposito, Bennett, Mbembe, Heise, and Derrida, to name of few of the leaders in the fields of Ecocriticism and Animal Studies. Beilin's analysis of the animal world in Lorca, Buero Vallejo, Martín Santos (Tiempo de silencio), Pardo-Bazán, Clarín, Baroja, Mayorga (Las últimas palabras de Copito de Nieve, Palabra de perro, animales nocturnos, La paz perpetua), Goytisolo, Fernández Mallo (Nocilla Experience), Montero (Lágrimas en la lluvia), among other Spanish writers, is insightful and brilliant. Equally important are her analyses of animals in films by Buñuel (Las Hurdes, L'Age D'Or, and Le Phantôme de la liberté—especially the liberation of the zoo animals at the end), Saura (La caza), Berger (Blancanieves), Almodóvar (Matador), and Gonzalez Iñárritu (Biutiful). It is important to note that in this book she writes about animals in general, not just bulls, and adds, for example, some interesting facts about Copito de Nieve (the albino ape of the Barcelona zoo). There are, however, some areas that I wish the author had covered in her analyses. Although she mentions Goya's Tauromaquia she does not mention Picasso's works on the bullfight. Although she has an absolutely stunning analysis of animals in general in Buñuel's films, she fails to mention the bullfight in his La fièvre monte à El Pao. She could have also mentioned the bullfighter who is afraid of snakes in Almodóvar's Hable con ella. But these are minor omissions in a book that is brimming with an amazing amount of information and new ways of interpreting the role the animal world plays in Spanish culture and its important message for human and non-human animals on this planet. The breadth and depth of Beilin's scholarship and insights is dazzling. The author's commentary on King Juan Carlos's disastrous elephant expedition and subsequent abdication is fascinating when viewed in terms of the way she has interpreted the treatment of animals in other literary and cultural contexts earlier in her book and serves to solidify her theory that a more harmonious relationship between humans, animals, and the environment needs to take place if life on this planet is to survive. Other discussions of interest are Barcelona's ban on bullfighting, the Great Ape Project, Manolete, the Spanish obsession with death, animalization and anthropomorphism, ethical treatment of animals, the celebration of the International Day of Animal Rights, the War on Terror (torture of humans and animals), the role of synthetic life, Spain as a leader...

Posthuman Spaces of Relation: Literary Responses to the Species Boundary in Primate Literature

This article aims at showing how contemporary literary responses to human-nonhuman primate relationships can be as valid a form of thinking about the animal as the philosophical and scientific roots of movements such as the Great Ape Project. Traditionally the ape has been the source of stories that question the definition of the human. Since the beginning of the modern animal liberation movement in the 1970s and thanks to the development of scientific fields such as cognitive ethology, primatology, and trans-species psychology, some fiction writers have produced works that develop alternative ways of thinking about the nonhuman primate. In order to understand the transformative power of the literary imagination this article first offers a short reflection on the connections between the posthuman turn and the development of literary animal studies. Secondly, after commenting on the main narratives that have nourished our relationship with nonhuman apes since the eighteenth century, it presents an overview of the main ape motifs that populate Anglophone literatures. And finally, it argues that literature compels us to transcend the category “human” and enter into a posthuman age that philosophers such as Cary Wolfe or Rosi Braidotti acknowledge as more in tune with the reality of who we are as a species: multiply hybridized in our constant interactions with nonhuman beings.

THE BAN AND THE BULL: CULTURAL STUDIES, ANIMAL STUDIES, AND SPAIN

Animal es sustancia animada, adornada de sentido y movimiento, y entre todos el principal es el hombre por ser animal racional y se dize del bruto; y es nombre generico para el y para el hombre; pe...

Making Meaning Out of Human/Animal: Scientific Competition of Classifications in the Spanish Legislature

In the summer of 2008, the Spanish legislature resolved to grant great apes (though not all simians) basic human rights. While the decision to grant such rights came about largely through the lobbying efforts of the Great Ape Project (GAP), the decision has potential reverberations throughout the scientific world and beyond in its implications for shaping determinations of “what is human.” Such implications do not appear to be lost on various groupings of scientists who have spoken about their opinions about the case and the project in general. These groupings of scientists, I argue, using the work of Mary Douglas and others, can be compared to “tribes” actively advancing and defending their classifications of the “human” in a bid for a retention or expansion of power.

The Reception of Peter Singer’s Theories in France

AbstractPeter Singer’s views on the status of nonhuman animals have attracted both attention and intense controversy in many Western countries, including the United States, Canada, and Germany. The reactions to his theories in France are less well known. The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of critical responses to Singer by French academics and thinkers. How have they received Singer’s contention that we must bring nonhuman animals within the sphere of moral concern? Do French scholars agree with his utilitarian argument on marginal cases, his definition of the term “person,” his defense of the Great Ape Project? Finally, is he considered in France a brilliant and groundbreaking ethicist, a dangerous extremist, or somewhere in between?

Animals and Animals

Speciesism is the wrong of not acknowledging the moral qualities that non-human animals possess that are similar or equivalent or even superior to the moral qualities that human beings possess. However, since it is manifestly clear that no one thinks that apes are in any way obligated to human beings, it clearly cannot be a form of speciesism to be mindful of the differences on the basis of which that is so. In opposition to the advocates of the Great Ape Project, my aim in this essay is to establish the quite minimal claim that apes should not have the same moral status as human beings because human beings have a far greater capacity for moral responsibility than do apes. The claim that I wish to establish is quite compatible with the claim that apes should be treated in a much more morally wholesome manner.

The end of monkey research?

Kevan A. C. Martin, a neurobiologist and director of the Institute of Neuroinformatics—a joint institute of the University of Zurich and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology—has a moral dilemma. For the past four years, he has not hired any postdoctoral fellows or PhD students. He feels he cannot take them on in good conscience because he cannot guarantee they will be able to do research. It was another moral debate that put him in this position; his work on rhesus macaques has been put on hold and he is uncertain when, or if, it will resume in Switzerland. > …the real impact on primate labs might come from pending revisions to legislation in Europe and the USA that could potentially end research on apes and monkeys altogether In 2004, the Swiss Constitution was changed to acknowledge “the dignity of living beings,” which, according to Martin, was intended to address concerns about transgenic experimentation, rather than animal research in general. Nevertheless, the change resulted in some members of a local external advisory committee on animal experimentation legally challenging the 2006 renewal of Martin's license to use the monkeys for neurobiological research. Similar legal action was taken against Daniel Kiper at the same institute, whose research on brain plasticity in monkeys has relevance for stroke patients. A third researcher, whose work on motor systems has implications for patients with spinal cord damage, has decided to leave Switzerland (Staub, 2007). All three of these projects were approved by the Zurich Canton's Veterinary Office, which controls experiments on animals. Martin's case has been working its way through the Swiss courts and is finally before Switzerland's Federal Supreme Court. In the meantime, Martin, who established the Institute in Zurich with Rodney Douglas 13 years ago, has been limited to using post‐mortem monkey brains. These are …

Simios, derechos y torceduras

This paper comments the reactions to the proposal that Spain supports Great Ape Project Declaration. Those of us who subscribe this Declaration do not share the same ethical or political position. Also, the mention of other emancipatory struggles (slaves, women, indigenous people) must not be restricted to a rhetorical and sentimental use, because there are some analogous aspects, indeed. Finally, I sustain that the concept of humanity is no longer a self-evident fact, but a philosophical and discoursive problem, opened to the human intervention.

The Great Ape Project: Legislating for the Control of the Use of Non-human Hominids in Research, Testing and Teaching — Animal Welfare Act 1999 (New Zealand)

The Animal Welfare Act 1999 (New Zealand), which commenced on January 1 2000, provides that the use of non-human hominids in research, testing or teaching is not permitted unless the Director-General of Agriculture approves the use, and then, only if the use is in the interests of the non-human hominid itself or its species. The Animal Welfare Act 1999 originated with two parliamentary bills. The first, a private member's bill in the name of Pete Hodgson MP, was tabled in 1997, and the second, a Government measure, was tabled a year later. Neither bill made any reference to non-human hominids. The Great Ape Project made submissions that non-human hominids be afforded similar rights to humans, i.e. not to be deprived of life, not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment and not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation. Proponents and opponents of the measure argued for and against the tenet of introducing "rights" issues into what was essentially "welfare" legislation. These arguments are analysed, and the legislative process that enabled this modification is examined.

What it means to be 98% chimpanzee: apes, people, and their genes

The overwhelming similarity of human and ape genes is one of the best-known facts of modern genetic science. But what does this similarity mean? Does it, as many have suggested, have profound implications for understanding human nature? Well-known molecular anthropologist Jonathan Marks uses the human-versus-ape controversy as a jumping-off point for a radical reassessment of a range of provocative issue - from the role of science in society to racism, animal rights, and cloning. Full of interesting facts, fascinating personalities, and vivid examples that capture times and places, this work explains and demystifies human genetic science - showing ultimately how it has always been subject to social and political influences and teaching us how to think critically about its modern findings. Marks presents the field of molecular anthropology - a synthesis of the holistic approach of anthropology with the reductive approach of molecular genetics - as a way of improving our understanding of the science of human evolution. As he explores the intellectual terrain of this field, he lays out its broad areas of interest with issues ranging from the differences between apes and humans to the biological and behavioral variations expressed in humans as a species. Marks confronts head-on the problems of racial classification in science. He describes current theories about race and uses work in primatology, comparative anatomy, and molecular anthropology to debunk them. He also sheds new light on the controversial Great Ape Project, the Human Genome Diversity Project, and much more. This iconoclastic, witty, and extremely readable book illuminates the deep background of human variation and asks us to reconsider the role of science in modern society tools.

The Great Ape Project and Disability Rights: Ominous Undercurrents of Eugenics in Action

The Great Ape Project is an international animal rights movement with the goal of extending rights to nonhuman primates. While the authors of this essay are sympathetic with scholars who seek to ensure humane treatment for these species, they are concerned with the growing tendency by those in the project to draw analogies between nonhuman primates and humans with disabilities. It is felt that scholars in the Great Ape Project, ignoring findings from anthropologists who have begun to study the significant sociocultural matrix that has defined and often limited individuals with disabilities, rely on assumptions about disability that can be traced back to the eugenics movement.The authors of this essay argue that if scholars in the Great Ape Project want to make comparisons between humans and apes, it should be with all humans. They feel it is both unfortunate and scientifically inaccurate for those in the Great Ape Project to blur the boundary between apes and people by dehumanizing individuals with disabilities, individuals for whom human rights are often the most precarious, [great apes, Great Ape Project, disability, eugenics, human rights]

Supporting the underdog: feminism, animal rights and citizenship in the work of Alice Morgan Wright and Edith Goode

In this article, the author examines the overlap between feminism and animal causes, particularly through the lives of two women, the sculptor, Alice Morgan Wright (1881-1975), and her friend, Edith Goode (1882-1970). Feminism and animal causes had connections in the late nineteenth century, particularly in campaigns to abolish vivisection. Wright and Goode held to these politics throughout their lives, and were ‘precursors of a generation yet to come’ who would argue the connections – as many ecofeminists do today. Both women were involved in suffrage campaigns, and continued to be involved in women's organisations such as the National Woman's Party. They were, however, opposed to all injustice, including human mistreatment of animals. Feminism was, to Wright and Goode, part of a wider set of problems; animal cruelty reflected a greater barbarism leading to mistreatment of humans. Accordingly, they actively campaigned for legislation to protect animals and the environment, and lobbied the fledgling United Nations to include such measures. That challenge to the United Nations represented a unique attempt to bring animals into citizenship' a move being made again today, through initiatives such as the Great Ape Project.

Supporting the underdog: feminism, animal rights and citizenship in the work of alice morgan wright and edith goode

Abstract In this article, the author examines the overlap between feminism and animal causes, particularly through the lives of two women, the sculptor, Alice Morgan Wright (1881-1975), and her friend, Edith Goode (1882-1970). Feminism and animal causes had connections in the late nineteenth century, particularly in campaigns to abolish vivisection. Wright and Goode held to these politics throughout their lives, and were ‘precursors of a generation yet to come’ who would argue the connections – as many ecofeminists do today. Both women were involved in suffrage campaigns, and continued to be involved in women's organisations such as the National Woman's Party. They were, however, opposed to all injustice, including human mistreatment of animals. Feminism was, to Wright and Goode, part of a wider set of problems; animal cruelty reflected a greater barbarism leading to mistreatment of humans. Accordingly, they actively campaigned for legislation to protect animals and the environment, and lobbied the fledgling United Nations to include such measures. That challenge to the United Nations represented a unique attempt to bring animals into citizenship' a move being made again today, through initiatives such as the Great Ape Project.

Deep ethology, animal rights, and the great ape/animal project: Resisting speciesism and expanding the community of equals

In this essay I argue that the evolutionary and comparative study of nonhuman animal (hereafter animal) cognition in a wide range of taxa by cognitive ethologists can readily inform discussions about animal protection and animal rights. However, while it is clear that there is a link between animal cognitive abilities and animal pain and suffering, I agree with Jeremy Bentham who claimed long ago the real question does not deal with whether individuals can think or reason but rather with whether or not individuals can suffer. One of my major goals will be to make the case that the time has come to expand. The Great Ape Project (GAP) to The Great Ape/Animal Project (GA/AP) and to take seriously the moral status and rights of all animals by presupposing that all individuals should be admitted into the Community of Equals. I also argue that individuals count and that it is essential to avoid being speciesist cognitivists; it really doesn't matter whether ‘dogs ape’ or whether ‘apes dog’ when taking into account the worlds of different individual animals. Narrow-minded primatocentrism and speciesism must be resisted in our studies of animal cognition and animal protection and rights. Line-drawing into ‘lower’ and ‘higher’ species is a misleading speciesist practice that should be vigorously resisted because not only is line-drawing bad biology but also because it can have disastrous consequences for how animals are viewed and treated. Speciesist line-drawing also ignores within species individual differences.

The Great Ape Project: Premises and Implications

Is it consistent to accept ethical constraints on scientific research when humans are involved, and to reject them when it comes to non-humans? Is the current scientific practice of experimenting on sentient animals a “necessary evil” which must simply be tolerated, or is it an indefensible practice stemming from arbitrary discrimination based on species? These are some of the questions we address in this paper, in order to illustrate the implications for scientific experimentation of the first attempt to grant to some non-human beings the basic rights which have so far been limited to members of our own species. Resulting from the recent rethinking on the moral status of animals, this attempt revolves around the collective argument for the enfranchisement of chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans that, together with a distinguished group of scientists and philosophers, we have presented in The Great Ape Project. We draw from this volume some of the evidence that ethologists, language researchers, psychologists and anthropologists have gathered in favour of the attribution to the other great apes of many of the characteristics we traditionally consider to be morally significant when we find them in ourselves. After stressing the relevance of a species-neutral notion of person in the actual philosophical debate, we highlight the overwhelming case for its application, in both the moral and the legal senses, to the other great apes. While, on a general level, this would lead to the inclusion of our closest living relatives in the sphere of equality, as far as the practice of experimentation is concerned, it would result in extending to them those very restrictions which at present apply to scientific research on humans.

The great ape project. Equality beyond humanity.Edited by Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer

The great ape project. Equality beyond humanity.Edited by Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer

“Apes projected?”. Review of The Great Ape Project. Equality Beyond Humanity, edited by Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer. London, Fourth Estate, 1993, 312 pp, £9.99

“Apes projected?”. Review of <i>The Great Ape Project. Equality Beyond Humanity</i>, edited by Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer. London, Fourth Estate, 1993, 312 pp, £9.99

Book Review: The Great Ape Project: Equality beyond Humanity

Book Review: The Great Ape Project: Equality beyond Humanity

The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity. Edited by Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer (1993). Fourth Estate: London. 312pp. Paperback. Obtainable from the publishers, 289 Westbourne Grove, London W11 2QA, UK (ISBN 1 85702 126 6) Price £9.99.

The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity. Edited by Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer (1993). Fourth Estate: London. 312pp. Paperback. Obtainable from the publishers, 289 Westbourne Grove, London W11 2QA, UK (ISBN 1 85702 126 6) Price £9.99. - Volume 3 Issue 2

Advance Notice of Meeting: The Exploitation of Mammals

Call for Papers: The Great Ape Project The~Italian journal Etica & Animali will publish with Professor Peter S*rffe6r as a special co-editor, a multi-lingual issue devoted to the Great Ape Project, to be distributed worldwide. The Great Ape Project is a cultural and political enterprise aiming at the inclusion of chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans into the community of equals which has until now comprised only human beings. The case for such inclusion is presented in the collective volume The Great Ape Project, edited by P. Cavalieri and P. Singer (Fourth Estate, London 1993, and St. Martin's, New York, 1994). In