Talk:Animal–industrial complex/Archive 1

Archive 1

Explanation of the work I just did

I did a serious work-over of the citations. The prior-used Template:Sfn method creates two entries for citations that are only used once (which was most of them). Changing the style to the more commonly used < ref > method allowed me to identify citations that weren't used (which got moved to External links section), which were duplicated in refs and ext links (deleted one), and disclosed some other errors that needed fixing. I only did "technical" work such as citation maintenance and checking a few of the citations for verification. I did not check all. I agree with the hatnotes: essay-like, POV and Overlinked. Normal Op (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sourced contents

Dear Chrisahn. Thank you for cleaning up the article to a great extent. That was a long-pending task. However, I see that several sourced claims have been removed in the clean-up process. For example, the complex existing from early on and morphing into the current form since 1945 and the mention about Upton Sinclair and Charles Patterson are from the very source (Sorenson, 2014) although I had earlier additionally included the Sinclair and Patterson's books as sources as well. I'm okay with the removal of these books as sources (for we already have a secondary source—Sorenson). However, I'm only surprised with the removal of the claims themselves. Can you reason these? I feel these are pushing the already "fringe" concept to the edge of the periphery. Thank you. Rasnaboy (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I tried to assist by looking at the edit-history. You might need to provide some specific diffs you are questioning (because there are so many). Normal Op (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Neither Upton Sinclair nor Charles Patterson appear to be relevant to the concept Animal–industrial complex. 1. Neither Sinclair nor Patterson use the term Animal–industrial complex themselves. Sinclair obviously couldn't know it, Patterson probably didn't know it. 2. Sorenson 2014 doesn't mention Sinclair. You probably meant Sorenson 2018, where Sinclair is mentioned once, but not in relation to the concept Animal–industrial complex, as far as I can tell. 2. Both Sorenson 2014 and Sorenson 2018 mention Patterson, but again not in relation to the concept Animal–industrial complex, as far as I can tell. -- Chrisahn (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I get your point, Chrisahn. What I mean here is these appear in the section "Origin of the complex", which is nothing but that which talks about the history. Thus anything that the AIC traces back to will be discussed, even if there is no mention of that word (obviously for the reason that the term was coined much later). For example, in the history section of veganism article, all that resulted in the modern terminology of veganism—such as compassion, ahimsa, vegetarianism (none of which would have had the word "veganism")—will have been discussed. In this article's case, although the term AIC was coined in 1989, the precursors right from antiquity such as domestication, industrialization, assembly-line, World War, etc. that have contributed to the present one, will be discussed. That's the very reason why we have these in the Sorenson citations. What is your view? Rasnaboy (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Here's a timeline of my edits which deleted a couple of sentences, and my rationale for each one:

• The first three sentences of the Origins section used to be: "The origin of the animal–industrial complex can be traced back to antiquity when humans began domesticating animals. However, it was only since 1945 that the animal–industrial complex began to grow significantly. According to Kim Stallwood, the animal–industrial complex is 'an integral part of the neoliberal, transnational order of increasing privatization and decreasing government intervention, favouring transnational corporations and global capital.'"
• In this edit I removed the sentence "However, it was only since 1945 that the animal–industrial complex began to grow significantly".
  • I couldn't find any support for it in the given sources.
• An hour later in this edit I replaced the sentence "The origin of the animal–industrial complex can be traced back to antiquity when humans began domesticating animals" by "The origin of human uses of animals can be traced back to antiquity".
  • The lede said the "animal–industrial complex [...] includes every human uses of animals", which meant that the origin of the animal–industrial complex are more or less identical to the origins of human uses of animals.
• In the next edit I changed "antiquity" to "prehistory".
  • The origins of human uses of animals are much older than (written) history: hominids have hunted animals for millions of years (e.g. chimpanzees sometimes hunt, kill and eat other animals, even small pigs), and humans domesticated animals at least 10,000 years before developing writing (see Domestication of animals, Prehistory and History#History and prehistory).
• But then in the next edit I deleted the sentence about the origins with the following edit comment: human uses of animals in prehistory certainly are not "an integral part of the neoliberal, transnational order of increasing privatization and decreasing government intervention, favouring transnational corporations and global capital", so let's just delete that sentence.
  • The claim "integral part of ... global capital" was the sentence right after the claim about the origins (since I had deleted the unsourced claim about "since 1945"). The claim about prehistory (or ancient history) seemed to be in contradiction to the claim that the animal–industrial complex is "an integral part" of a very recent development.

Because the animal–industrial complex has no clear definition and delineation, it's hard to talk about its origins. The word industrial may hint that it originated with industrial society, but the article never said that. The article used to say it began to grow significantly after 1945, but that was unsourced. The article also used to say it originated in antiquity, but that doesn't make sense (as explained above) and is at odds with the meaning of the word industrial.

Since you're asking about my view: My view is that the term animal–industrial complex has no clear meaning and is largely a rhetorical and political device, and that's what it's meant to be by its proponents. Its content, as far as it can be discerned, is mostly a conspiracy theory. It is almost completely irrelevant and hardly anyone outside of critical animal studies has even heard of it. But that's just my opinion. Unfortunately, due its irrelevance there are no reliable sources I could quote to support my analysis.

In conclusion: As far as I can tell, the sources don't tell us how long the supposed animal–industrial complex has existed. Since 1945? Since antiquity? Since prehistory? Since the industrial revolution? I have no idea.

-- Chrisahn (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Quotes from Twine paper

Here are some quotes from the Twine paper that show quite clearly why the term animal-industrial complex is problematic: It is not clearly defined, inherently political instead of scientific, and irrelevant. (Emphasis and interpretation added by me.)

The paper aims to 'reveal' the 'animal-industrial complex' in two senses. Firstly by returning to Noske‘s concept the aim is to tease out its original perceptive dimensions but also to add further rigour so that it is less of a rhetorical term but actually begins to be embodied by a delineated set of actors, relations and usable definitions. Whilst a hyperbolic sense of the concept has not been without use in the sense of a shared discourse between those politically interested in challenging its power; working toward, in this paper, a more refined definition can provide the critical animal studies research agenda much more focus, shape and coherence. Moreover, this can be valuable for understanding the context of the complex within broader relations of political economy, for a better appreciation of intersectionality and in allowing the concept to do better political work for those engaged in its critique.

— Richard Twine, "Revealing the 'Animal-Industrial Complex' – A Concept & Method for Critical Animal Studies?", Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume 10, Issue 1 (2012), p. 14

In short: It's largely a rhetorical and political device without a usable definition.

It has not been used very much since in academic work but seems to have at least in a limited sense entered critical discourse around human-animal relations.

— ibid., p 15

In other words, the term animal-industrial complex isn't relevant — not even for those who share the political views of Noske and Twine.

Twine quotes Noske:

...the "main impetus behind modern animal production comes from monopolistically inclined financial interests rather than from farmers, consumers or workers here or in the Third World."

— ibid., p 15

If we replace animal production by any other kind of production, it becomes obvious that this isn't much more than a conspiracy theory: the main impetus behind modern book production comes from monopolistically inclined financial interests rather than from writers, readers or workers here or in the Third World.

Twine almost admits this in a paragraph starting with the following sentence:

It is worth pointing to a note of caution toward the discourse of the complex in the sense that it may suggest something akin to a conspiracy theory.

— ibid., p 20

Twine about Noske:

...nowhere does she offer a clear working definition of the 'animal-industrial complex' or a schematic to show what it might comprise...

— ibid., p 16

Again: no usable definition.

Twine later offers this "definition" (italics in original):

...an actual definition ought to be a collective work-in-progress amongst the CAS community. Here I offer an initial basic and succinct definition of the A-IC as a partly opaque and multiple set of networks and relationships between the corporate (agricultural) sector, governments, and public and private science. With economic, cultural, social and affective dimensions it encompasses an extensive range of practices, technologies, images, identities and markets.

— ibid., p 23

Extremely vague. How long has the A-IC existed? Which groups and companies are part of it? Am I part of it if I have a cat? How about the veterinarian who treats my cat? How about a farmer who keeps a couple of cows and chickens? Did the first domesticated dogs and goats belong to the animal-industrial complex? And so on. I have no idea how to answer these questions, and I don't think Twine does either.

Whilst acknowledging that methods are in an important sense performative (Law, 2004: 56), in that they partly construct the reality they purport to present, social research here is notable for in the case of the A-IC they make a reality that previously, in a sense for many people, due to hegemonic affective investments in veiling and denial, did not in fact exist.

— ibid., p 33

Again: a political term based on a conspiracy theory, coined to help "construct" or "reveal" a reality that has so far been been "veiled" by a nebulous "hegemony".

-- Chrisahn (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Reasons for it and modifications after technological innovations

Where animal exploitation had been rationalized as an inescapable path toward desirable solutions, technological innovations dissolve some of those aggregations and reduce the seeming inevitability of an AIC. Can this dynamic be explored in this or in another article (to which it could be linked)? Some 'technological innovations' result in more cost-effective strategies less exploitation of animals as models for knowledge production or raw resources for some other industrialized products (altering the 'business cases for using them in such ways). MaynardClark (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I hardly understand anything you wrote. Could you express it in a way that the average reader will understand? Of course, "the average reader" is a rather vague concept, so how about this: Try to express it in sentences that might be included in an average article on bbc.co.uk. Specifically:

• I'm not sure what you mean by "animal exploitation". The top Google result for "animal exploitation" is animal cruelty. Is that what you mean? Or something more general?
• "rationalized as an inescapable path toward desirable solutions" - What do you mean by "rationalized"? I guess you mean Rationalization (psychology), not Rationalization (economics), but I'm not sure.
• If you mean Rationalization (psychology) - by whom?
• "inescapable path toward desirable solutions" - I don't know what you're talking about. Solutions for which problems? Desirable by whom? In what sense "inescapable"?
• "technological innovations dissolve some of those aggregations" - Which "technological innovations"? Which "aggregations"? What does "dissolve" mean here?
• "reduce the seeming inevitability of an AIC" - I don't understand this either, but I guess it will become clearer when you explain "inescapable" (see above).
• "Some 'technological innovations' result in more cost-effective strategies less exploitation of animals" - I guess this will also become clearer when you specify which "technological innovations" you have in mind and what you mean by "exploitation of animals" (see above).
• "animals as models for knowledge production" - I don't know what that means. Please be more specific.
• "raw resources for some other industrialized products" - I guess you mean meat and dairy food production, but I'm not sure. Please be more specific.

In general: Please try to use jargon-free language. I don't know if you're a proponent of critical animal studies, but in case you are, have a look at the homepage of the 'Journal for Critical Animal Studies': "JCAS supports and strives to publish work that ... [is] jargon-free".

And finally: If you can express your claim such that it will be useful for Wikipedia readers and there are WP:RS that confirm it, we can add it to the article. Otherwise, we can't. -- Chrisahn (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

As far as I can tell, the concept animal–industrial complex is pseudoscience: it claims to be scientific (and its proponents use jargon that sounds scientific), but one can't derive testable predictions from it. See Science#Scientific method: "[A] hypothesis is put forward as explanation using principles such as parsimony (also known as "Occam's Razor") ... This new explanation is used to make falsifiable predictions that are testable by experiment or observation." I can't see how the idea of animal–industrial complex could be falsified, or tested at all. It would help support the claim that the idea is a scientific concept if someone could find reliable sources that show how to derive predictions from it that one couldn't derive with simpler, more common concepts. -- Chrisahn (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism § Improving the AIC article -- Rasnaboy (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)