Examining the application of Iris Young's framework of oppression beyond species lines

• In Event: Conceptualizing Iris Young’s (1990) “Five Faces of Oppression” to protest violence in education against humans and animals

Proposal

Animal Oppression arises from stripping them of their inherent worth and relegating them to mere commodities exploited for human advantage (Adams, 2021). This oppressive system doesn’t only affect animals, but also endangers our connection with the natural world and undermines our sense of being (Heidegger, 1977). As we acknowledge the power of protest in addressing violence, we should be attentive to all forms of disempowerment. The concept of species should not hinder us from extending our empathy to nonhuman animals since the factors contributing to oppression affect both humans and animals.

While Young (1990) didn’t mention animals in her “Five Faces of Oppression” framework, however the question she posed: “What makes a group oppressed?” offers an entryway for expanding the concept of oppression beyond species boundaries.Young posited that a group is deemed oppressed when it encounters any of the five “faces” of oppression (1990). By applying Young's concept of exploitation to the context of human-animal relations, it becomes apparent that animals are indeed an oppressed group, which prompts a reevaluation of the human-animal relationship as it is portrayed in the school curriculum.

In my pursuit to explore the ways education can act as a catalyst for change, within the conference subtheme of “Curriculum and Protest”, my focus is on challenging the “commonly accepted understanding of reality” (Freeman, 2017, p. 57), as it relates to animal exploitation. This involves identifying the ideologies behind the school practices that ‘absent the animals’ and reduce them to food commodities or entertainment objects.

Luis Althusser’s (2014) theory, “structural determinism” which states that individuals are shaped by the social, cultural, and economic structures in which they live, offers a theoretical tool. It helps identify forms of coercion, used to perpetuate animal exploitation. Furthermore, as the context within which the human and animal relationship can be understood is multi-dimensional, the dialectic thinking helps in understanding the interconnectedness between the historical, structural, and material conditions that shape the students’ attitudes toward animals with the aim of constituting a counter narrative through reforming norms, discourses, and practices (Freeman, 2017). The transformational possibilities that are opened by the dialectical movement are through making visible an alternative truth that has been hidden by the workings of power (Foucault 1972).
One aspect of the study involves examining the hidden curriculum, which reinforces existing norms while marginalizing alternative voices. This analysis includes identifying the omission of important topics such as the truth about animal suffering, the environmental impact of agricultural industries, the history of the animal rights movement, and biographies of animal liberation leaders.

The creation of curricular possibilities that incorporate conversations around non-human animals as morally eligible for consideration may contribute to the cultivation of students' moral reasoning. It enables them to recognize the intrinsic value of all living beings, and therefore promotes students’ self-awareness of the impact of their choices on their health, the environment, and the welfare of all beings. This could be an effective way to cultivate transformative change related to sustainability, tolerance, and non-violence.

Author

• jihan haidar, Florida International University