Laurent Bègue-Shankland, professor of social psychology at the University of Grenoble-Alpes, carried out the first French survey on cruelties committed against animals among a population of 12,300 adolescents aged 11 to 18 in Isère.
His work is unique in establishing a link with speciesism, a theory that establishes a hierarchy between species and the superiority of humans over animals. To the question "Is the life of a human being more valuable than that of an animal?" », The responses of adolescents thus bring out a higher level of support among perpetrators of acts of cruelty.
His study, "Explaining animal violence in adolescents: the role of speciesism", can be found in the American scientific journal Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Laurent Bègue-Shankland reviews the results of his work for Le Parisien, revealing the unexpected consequences of the notion of speciesism.
What is the main conclusion of your study?
The results showed that 7.3% of the students had committed animal cruelty. It was mainly boys (67.7%) - men tend to be more violent than women in general - who predominantly preyed on cats and dogs (22.5% and 13.9%) . In general, these young people have little attachment to their parents, friends and school. They also have higher than normal levels of anxiety and aggression. But we must not make the mistake of limiting ourselves to the pathological facet of these behaviors of cruelty.
What other explanation do you get from this?
Another interesting finding is the link between cruelty to animals and other forms of deviance. Affected students are also the most likely to be perpetrators of harassment towards other students, to participate in fights or to get drunk. This is in line with the many studies that show that there is a link between violence against people and violence against animals. Animal cruelty is one facet of this spectrum of aggression.
Has a link been established between violence against humans and cruelty against animals?
Newsletter - Most of the news
Every morning, the news seen by Le ParisienI'm registering
Your email address is collected by Le Parisien to enable you to receive our news and commercial offers. Learn more
As early as the 1960s, in criminology, we looked at this phenomenon with serial murderers. Levin and Arluke (2009) have shown that among serial killers who have been sadistic with their victims, 90% have been cruel to animals in the past. This is an important signal, so much so that since 2015, the FBI has been collecting data on acts of violence against pets.
Subsequently, in psychiatry, we tried to understand why a person will be insensitive to the suffering of others, whether for humans or animals. But through this work, we ultimately very little questioned the role of society, of established beliefs. This aspect was less obvious.
What role does society play in this violence?
My study is the first to show that speciesism, in force in society, plays a role in this cruelty. This concept popularized by Pinter Singer, a philosopher of Pinceton, indicates a hierarchy between man and animal. Humans thus arrogate to themselves the right to exploit species which, according to them, have a lower value than their own. In the questionnaire, I was interested in how adolescents think of the value of humans in relation to animals. It is asked: "Are human beings worth more than animals?" Then: "Can we use animals, even if they suffer, for biomedical research?" The results establish a link between this speciesist vision and the violence committed against the animal species.
Does speciesism place on the same level the violence committed by an individual against an animal and that carried out by an institution, such as research?
Absolutely, although the intention is of course not the same. If you burn a dog's skin to study its healing, you have full legitimacy as a scientist in a lab. But if you experience it in your backyard, you could go to jail. Basically, in both cases, the representation we have of animals is the same. For scientific utility or to satisfy a sadistic impulse, they appear inferior to us. The institutionalized practice only seems more legitimate.
The latest video from the L214 association denouncing the conditions of slaughter in a duck farm aroused great indignation, while the petition for a referendum against mistreatment collected 650,000 signatures. Is speciesism about to disappear?
The French are more and more sensitive to the issue of animal welfare, the surveys are eloquent on this subject. Each L214 video on abuse arouses outrage. The population is now overwhelmingly opposed to practices such as factory farming, hunting and bullfighting.
That said, there is still some way to go for humans to make the link between their dietary practices and their aspirations for animal welfare. We find it inconceivable to kill dogs, cats, horses, but we appreciate consuming other animals, turning a blind eye to certain slaughter conditions. The farther the animals are from humans, the more legitimately they are exploitable. Even among animalist activists, we find practices of speciesism. In laboratories, they intervene, most often, to release primates rather than mice.
Does animal welfare only pass through this divisive notion?
You don't have to buy into the idea that animals and humans have the same value in order to treat animals properly. Without being a speciesist, most people consider the way in which animals are exploited today to be unworthy of humans. This is an old question. Theologians like Thomas Aquinas, who perceived the animal species as inferior to the human species, nevertheless believed that "by being cruel to animals, we risk weakening our own sensitivity towards others". Showing ourselves worthy of our human condition, while respecting the well-being of all animals, would constitute real progress for man.