Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:24:31.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contemporary animal advocacy in Italy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2018

Niccolò Bertuzzi
Niccolò Bertuzzi*
Affiliation:
Istituto di Scienze Umane e Sociali, Scuola Normale Superiore, Florence, Italy
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In spite of the great tradition in social movement studies, Italy completely lacks any contribution regarding animal advocacy from the point of view of political sociology. This is despite the fact that, as in the rest of Western societies, interest in the wellbeing, rights and status of non-human animals is growing. This can be seen both among the general population and in the very varied organised forms of welfare and activism. In this article, we will investigate this internal differentiation, starting from an initial stratification in welfare, protectionism and anti-speciesism, and focusing in particular on the following two aspects: ethical values; and political ‘careers’ and multi-membership affiliations. The investigation was accomplished by means of 20 semi-structured interviews and an online questionnaire answered by 704 volunteers and activists. The tripartition hypothesised was confirmed, although with a few exceptions: more progressive values emerged among anti-speciesists, and conservative positions among protectionists and welfarists, but the overall spectrum is characterised by utilitarian perspectives. Similarly, previous experience in the specific field of animal advocacy is typical of the protectionist area, while anti-speciesists also come from other opposition movements.

Italian summary

Nonostante la notevole tradizione italiana di studi sui movimenti sociali, mancano contributi inerenti il cosiddetto movimento animalista dal punto di vista della sociologia politica. D’altra parte, come nel resto delle società occidentali, in Italia si registra un crescente interesse per il benessere, i diritti e lo status degli animali non umani. Questo fenomeno si può riscontrare sia tra la popolazione generale sia nelle svariate forme di attivismo emergenti. In questo articolo, studieremo questa differenziazione interna, partendo da una suddivisione iniziale in tre strati – cura, protezionismo e antispecismo – e concentrandoci in particolare su due aspetti: da una parte, valori etici; dall’altra, le ‘carriere’ politiche e le multi-appartenenze di attivisti e volontari. Per farlo utilizziamo 20 interviste semi-strutturate e un questionario online a cui hanno risposto 704 attivisti e volontari. La tripartizione ipotizzata è confermata, anche se con alcune eccezioni rispetto a specifiche dimensioni indagate: valori più progressisti sono emersi tra gli antispecisti e posizioni conservatrici tra protezionisti e membri dell’area della cura, mentre tutto lo spettro è caratterizzato da prospettive utilitaristiche. Allo stesso modo, le precedenti esperienze in campo animalista sono tipiche dell’area protezionista, mentre gli antispecisti provengono anche da altri movimenti antagonisti.

Keywords

animal rights movementanimal advocacypolitical participationhuman animal studiessocial movements
Type
Research Articles
Information
Modern Italy , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
© 2018 Association for the Study of Modern Italy 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alimi, E. Y., Bosi, L., and Demetriou, C.. 2015. The Dynamics of Radicalization: A Relational and Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ambrosini, M. 2016. Volontariato post-moderno: da Expo Milano 2015 alle nuove forme di impegno sociale. Milan: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
Barbetta, G. P., Ecchia, G., and Zamaro, N.. 2016. Le istituzioni nonprofit in Italia: dieci anni dopo. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Bennett, L., and Segerberg, A.. 2013. The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bertuzzi, N. 2018. I movimenti animalisti in Italia . Strategie, politiche e pratiche di attivismo. Milan: Meltemi.Google Scholar
Best, S. 2014. The Politics of Total Liberation: Revolution for the 21st Century. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Biorcio, R., and Vitale, T.. 2016. Italia civile: associazionismo. partecipazione e politica. Rome: Donzelli.Google Scholar
Bjerke, T., and Kaltenborn, B. P.. 1999. ‘‘The Relationship of Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Motives to Attitudes toward Large Carnivores’’. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19 (4): 415–421.Google Scholar
Boltanski, L., and Thévenot, L.. 1991. De la justification. Les economies de la grandeur . Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Caffo, L. 2011. Soltanto per loro. Un manifesto per l’animalità attraverso la politica e la filosofia. Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
Caffo, L. 2013. Il Maiale Non Fa La Rivoluzione: Manifesto Per Un Antispecismo Debole. Casalmonferrato: Sonda.Google Scholar
Caffo, L. 2017. ‘Speciesism and the Ideology of Domination in the Italian Philosophical Tradition’. In The Palgrave Handbook of Practical Animal Ethics, edited by A. Linzey, and C. Linzey. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Castignone, S., and Vallauri, L. Lombardi. 2012. La questione animale . Vol. 6. Milan: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
Cherry, E. 2006. ‘Veganism as a Cultural Movement: A Relational Approach’. Social Movement Studies 5 (2): 155–170.Google Scholar
Cherry, E. 2010. ‘Shifting Symbolic Boundaries: Cultural Strategies of the Animal Rights Movement’. Sociological Forum 25:450–475. Wiley Online Library.Google Scholar
Claps, E., and Vitale, T.. 2016. ‘Partecipazione associativa e azione politica’. In Italia civile. Associazionismo, partecipazione e politica, edited by R. Borcio, and T. Vitale. Rome: Donzelli.Google Scholar
De Lillo, A., Argentin, G., Lucchini, M., Sarti, S., and Terraneo, M.. 2007. Analisi multivariata per le scienze sociali. Milan and Turin: Pearson Italia.Google Scholar
Della Porta, D., and Diani, M.. 2004. Movimenti senza protesta? L’ambientalismo in Italia. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Della Porta, D., and Diani, M.. 2015. The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diani, M. 1995. Green Networks. A Structural Analysis of the Italian Environmental Movement. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Driscoll, J. W. 1992. ‘Attitudes toward Animal Use’. Anthrozoös 5 (1): 32–39.Google Scholar
Dubreuil, C. M. 2009. ‘L’antispécisme, un mouvement de libération animale’. Ethnologie française 39 (1): 117.Google Scholar
Dubreuil, C. M. 2013. Libération animale et végétarisation du monde: ethnologie de l’antispécisme français. Paris: CTHS.Google Scholar
Einwohner, R. L. 2002. ‘Motivational Framing and Efficacy Maintenance: Animal Rights Activists’ Use of Four Fortifying Strategies’. The Sociological Quarterly 43 (4): 509–526.Google Scholar
Eldridge, J. J., and Gluck, J. P.. 1996. ‘Gender Differences in Attitudes toward Animal Research’. Ethics & Behavior 6 (3): 239–256.Google Scholar
Fernandez, R., and McAdam, D.. 1989. ‘Multiorganizational Fields and Recruitment to Social Movements’. International Social Movement Research 2 (1989): 315–343.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N., and McAdam, D.. 2012. A Theory of Fields. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Francione, G. 1996. Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Gaarder, E. 2011a. Where the Boys Aren’t: The Predominance of Women in Animal Rights Activism’. Feminist Formations 23 (2): 54–76.Google Scholar
Gaarder, E. 2011b. Women and the Animal Rights Movement. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Gallop, G. G., and Beckstead, J. W.. 1988. ‘Attitudes toward Animal Research.’ American Psychologist 43 (6): 474.Google Scholar
Garner, R. 2008. ‘The Politics of Animal Rights’. British Politics 3 (1): 110–119.Google Scholar
Guidi, R., Cappadozzi, T., and Fonovic, T.. 2016. Volontari e attività volontarie in Italia . Antecedenti, impatti, esplorazioni. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Herzog, H. A. 1993. ‘“The Movement Is My Life”: The Psychology of Animal Rights Activism’. Journal of Social Issues 49 (1): 103–119.Google Scholar
Herzog, H. A., and Golden, L. L.. 2009. ‘Moral Emotions and Social Activism: The Case of Animal Rights’. Journal of Social Issues 65 (3): 485–498.Google Scholar
Herzog, H. A., Betchart, N. S., and Pittman, R. B.. 1991. ‘Gender, Sex Role Orientation, and Attitudes toward Animals’. Anthrozoös 4 (3): 184–191.Google Scholar
Hills, A. M. 1993. ‘The Motivational Bases of Attitudes toward Animals’. Society & Animals 1 (2): 111–128.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. 1977. The Silent Revolution: Political Change Among Western Publics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobsson, K., and Lindblom, J.. 2013. ‘Emotion Work in Animal Rights Activism: A Moral-Sociological Perspective’. Acta Sociologica 56 (1): 55–68.Google Scholar
Jasper, J. M., and Nelkin, D.. 1991. The Animal Rights Crusade: The Growth of a Moral Protest. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Jasper, J. M., and Poulsen, J. D.. 1995. ‘Recruiting Strangers and Friends: Moral Shocks and Social Networks in Animal Rights and Anti-Nuclear Protests’. Social Problems 42 (4): 493–512.Google Scholar
Kriesi, H. 1988. ‘Local Mobilization for the People’s Petition of the Dutch Peace Movement’. International Social Movement Research 1:41–82.Google Scholar
Kriesi, H., Koopmans, R., Duyvendak, J. W., and Giugni, M.. 1995. New Social Movements in Western Europe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kruse, C. R. 1999. ‘Gender, Views of Nature, and Support for Animal Rights’. Society & Animals 7 (3): 179–198.Google Scholar
Lipset, S.M, and Rokkan, S.. 1967. Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Mannucci, A. 2001. ‘Animali e diritto italiano: una storia’. In Per un codice degli animali. Commenti sulla normativa vigente, edited by A. Mannucci, and M. Tallacchini, 1–9. Milan: Giuffré.Google Scholar
Marpsat, M., and Razafindratsima, N.. 2010. ‘Survey Methods for Hard-to-Reach Populations: Introduction to the Special Issue’. Methodological Innovations Online 5 (2): 3.1–16.Google Scholar
Mathews, S., and Herzog, H. A.. 1997. ‘Personality and Attitudes toward the Treatment of Animals’. Society & Animals 5 (2): 169–175.Google Scholar
Maurer, D. 2010. Vegetarianism: Movement or Moment: Promoting a Lifestyle for Cult Change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Maurizi, M. 2011. Al di là della natura: gli animali, il capitale e la libertà. Anzio-Lavinio: Novalogos.Google Scholar
McAdam, D. 1988. ‘Micromobilization Contexts and Recruitment to Activism’. International Social Movement Research 1 (1): 125–154.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. D., and Zald, M. N.. 1977. ‘Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory’. American Journal of Sociology 82 (6): 1212–1241.Google Scholar
McDonald, B. 2000. ‘“Once You Know Something, You Can’t Not Know It.” An Empirical Look at Becoming Vegan’. Society & Animals 8 (1): 1–23.Google Scholar
Melucci, A. 1988. ‘Getting Involved: Identity and Mobilization in Social Movements’. International Social Movement Research 1 (26): 329–348.Google Scholar
Melucci, A. 1996. Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mika, M. 2006. ‘Framing the Issue: Religion, Secular Ethics and the Case of Animal Rights Mobilization’. Social Forces 85 (2): 915–941.Google Scholar
Milbrath, L. W. 1965. Political Participation: How and Why Do People Get Involved in Politics? Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.Google Scholar
Munro, L. 2001. ‘Caring about Blood, Flesh, and Pain: Women’s Standing in the Animal Protection Movement’. Society & Animals 9 (1): 43–61.Google Scholar
Munro, L. 2005. ‘Strategies, Action Repertoires and DIY Activism in the Animal Rights Movement’. Social Movement Studies 4 (1): 75–94.Google Scholar
Munro, L. 2012. ‘The Animal Rights Movement in Theory and Practice: A Review of the Sociological Literature’. Sociology Compass 6 (2): 166–181.Google Scholar
Nibert, D. 1994. ‘Animal Rights and Human Social Issues’. Society & Animals 2 (2): 115–124.Google Scholar
Nibert, D. 2002. Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Oberschall, A. 1973. Social Conflict and Social Movements. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Olson, M. 1965. Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Peek, C. W., Bell, N. J., and Dunham, C. C.. 1996. ‘Gender, Gender Ideology, and Animal Rights Advocacy’. Gender & Society 10 (4): 464–478.Google Scholar
Plous, S. 1991. ‘An Attitude Survey of Animal Rights Activists’. Psychological Science 2 (3): 194–196.Google Scholar
Plous, S. 1998. ‘Signs of Change within the Animal Rights Movement: Results from a Follow-up Survey of Activists’. Journal of Comparative Psychology 112 (1): 48.Google Scholar
Pocar, V. 2005. Gli animali non umani. Per una sociologia dei diritti. Rome-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Regan, T. 2005. Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Rowlands, M. 2002. Animals Like Us. Londo: Verso.Google Scholar
Serpell, J. A. 2004. ‘Factors Influencing Human Attitudes to Animals and Their Welfare’. Animal Welfare 13 (1): 145–151.Google Scholar
Shapiro, K., and DeMello, M.. 2010. ‘The State of Human-Animal Studies’. Society & Animals 18 (3): 307–318.Google Scholar
Simonsen, R. R. 2012. ‘A Queer Vegan Manifesto’. Journal for Critical Animal Studies 10 (3): 51–81.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 1975. Animal Liberation. London: Thorsons.Google Scholar
Tallacchini, M. 2010. ‘Dignità, etica science-based, democrazia: la tutela animale nella società europea della conoscenza’. In Cibo e religione: diritto e diritti, edited by A. G. Chizzoniti, and M. Tallacchini, 297–322. Cosenza: Libellula.Google Scholar
Tarrow, S. 1989. Democracy and Disorder. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tarrow, S. 2013. Contentious Politics. Wiley Online Library.Google Scholar
Tarrow, S., and Tilly, C.. 2007. ‘Contentious Politics and Social Movements’. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by C. Boix, and S. C. Stokes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tonutti, S. 2007. Diritti animali: storia e antropologia di un movimento. Udine: Forum.Google Scholar
Tosi, S. 2016. ‘Le diverse cerchie della partecipazione e la leadership diffusa’. In Italia civile: associazionismo, partecipazione e politica, edited by R. Biorcio, and T. Vitale, 69–79. Rome: Donzelli.Google Scholar
Tosi, S., and Vitale, T.. 2008. Responsabilité directe . Hybridations croisées entre catholiques et laïcs dans les mouvements pour la paix en Italie. Paris: Karthala.Google Scholar
Turina, I. 2010. ‘Éthique et engagement dans un groupe antispéciste’. L’Année Sociologique 60 (1): 161–187.Google Scholar
Verba, S., and Almond, G.. 1963. ‘The Civic Culture’. Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vicari Haddock, S., and Moulaert, F.. 2009. Rigenerare la città. Pratiche di innovazione sociale nelle città europee. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Vitale, T. 2009. ‘L’impatto istituzionale dell’innovazione sociale’. In Rigenerare la città. Pratiche di innovazione sociale nelle città europee, edited by S. Vicari Haddock, and F. Moulaert, 163–198. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. 1984. ‘Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social Problems.’ American Psychologist 39 (1): 40.Google Scholar
Wimmer, A. 2008. ‘The Making and Unmaking of Ethnic Boundaries: A Multilevel Process Theory’. American Journal of Sociology 113 (4): 970–1022.Google Scholar
Wrenn, C. L. 2014. ‘Abolition Then and Now: Tactical Comparisons Between the Human Rights Movement and the Modern Nonhuman Animal Rights Movement in the United States’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27 (2): 177–200.Google Scholar