On Wednesday, November 2nd (2016), I participated in a talk at Complutense University entitled “Education from a Respectful Perspective on Animals,” as part of the Second Conference on Critical Analysis of Speciesism, organized by Animal Ethics and the University Association Against Speciesism. At the end of the talk, a friend offered me some feedback that I found interesting.
Antes de explicar la crítica debo hacer una pequeña introducción. Utilicé a video en el que se mostraba un estudio realizado por el etólogo Frans de Waal que demostraba la concepción de la justicia más allá de los límites de la especie humana. El experimentador y su compañera metían a dos monos capuchinos en dos jaulas transparentes. A continuación ella introduce una piedra en la jaula del primer mono. Cuando devuelve la piedra, recibe un trozo de pepino como recompensa. A los capuchinos les gusta el pepino, así que la devuelve una y otra vez para obtener su premio.
Pero después este mono observa que empieza el experimento con su compañero, con la diferencia de que al segundo mono le dan un premio mucho más enriquecido en glucosa y fructosa, y por tanto más dulce, la uva. El primer mono vuelve a recibir una piedra. Éste la devuelve esperando recibir uva, pero una vez más obtiene un trozo de pepino. Mostrando su enfado ante la injusticia no sólo se niega a comerlo, sino que coge el pepino y se lo lanza a la experimentadora.
When the video shows the monkey's reaction, the audience in the university auditorium laughs. And I knew they were going to laugh, because it was the third time I'd used the video.
My friend's criticism, as you might have guessed, was that I shouldn't have used a laughable video in the face of such a sad situation. Furthermore, the video forced me to clarify that, while I consider the study scientifically valid, I don't consider it ethically valid because animals are not research tools. This clarification was actually intentional, not forced. I believe that in a discussion about education, it's important to emphasize that the validity of a study doesn't automatically make it right—something often used to justify vivisection and animal experimentation in general.
However, the main criticism is making me reflect on its coherence. I can't deny that my decision to screen this study makes people laugh at a scene that should evoke sadness and empathy. But I also see a positive side. I don't think anyone in the audience was laughing at the deprivation of liberty to which the two Capuchin monks are subjected, nor at the injustice committed against one of them "for the sake of science." I understand that those laughs contained a celebration of the rebellion and disrespect of someone oppressed by their captor, even though, unfortunately, the tools at their disposal were far from sufficient.