What is "Animal Welfarism"

Where did this term come from and what is it being used for now?

Legal Welfarism

A term first coined in 1996 is appearing with increasing frequently in animal research publications. So, it is worth considering what this word means and what it was invented for, starting with “Legal Welfarism.” This term was proposed as a concept by Gary Francoine in his 1995 book “Animals, Property and the Law.”

‘Legal welfarism is a normative theory implicit in the law and whose foundational assumptions are hardly ever recognized … although the law prohibits the infliction of “unnecessary” pain and suffering on animals and requires that they be treated “humanely,” these terms are interpreted in light of the legal status of animals as property … Consequently, what is considered “humane” treatment or “unnecessary” suffering may, under the law, differ considerably from the ordinary-language interpretations of those terms … The result is that regulation of animal use does not, as a general rule, transcend that level of protection that facilitates the most economically efficient exploitation of the animal.’

I would paraphrase this: When animal welfare is studied within the frame of animals being property, it is innately incomplete and underpowered compared to if you were to center the interest of the animal as the primary or only consideration. This argument is convincing when considering animal welfare from critical animal studies or animal rights perspectives.

If you use a Google NGRAM to get a rough idea of the term's popularity (blue line), you will see its use had a big bump in the years after Francoine’s first book and other writing that coined and used this new phrase was first published—roughly 1991-1998.

New Welfarism

Welfarism is a word that has been sporadically used in many different ways. In the 1980s, some agricultural interests regarded consumer interest in animal welfare as the passing fad of “welfare” that could be safely ignored. Going further afield, welfarism has been applied to consider (in sincere or warped ways) the welfare of Indigenous people in colonies in the Victorian era, workers in manufacturing in the early modern era, to criticize anti-poverty initiatives in the 1970s, and describe prioritizing citizens basic needs by the Modi government in India in the 2020s.

When a person adds “new” in front of “welfarism,” the term's meaning tilts between describing what is meant to be an admirable effort and criticizing a bad approach. Often in ways that contest the role of profit versus health. (The “ism” can create a skeptical distance between the ostensible goal of a movement and what they are really achieving). For example, one criticism of something described as “new welfarism” comes from the 1971 Congressional Records, where a representative suggested that alleviating poverty without requiring hard work (paying an unemployment benefit) will weaken society.

Francione segued from “legal welfarism” to “new welfarism” in his next book, Rain Without Thunder. He suggested that pursuing animal rights without challenging the status of animals as property was both new and a mistake. Francionce describes animal welfare work before the 1970s as typically only trying to care for animals as much as possible while exploiting them for human purposes (farming, racing, hunting, etc.). While, around the '70s and '80s, the animal rights movement began challenging whether animals should be exploited (i.e. pursuing animal liberation). In this context, Francione suggested that anyone who pursued animal welfare as a step towards abolishing animal exploitation was a “new welfarist” and on the wrong path.

This is a somewhat simplistic framework of the history of animal welfare/rights work, but it does help specify one possible approach and gives it an implicitly derogatory name. “Legal Welfarism” was a general cultural climate, and “New Welfarism” was a group of people Francione considered to be making a big mistake.

The term “new welfarism” experienced a peak of use (2006-2013) before fading away. The term “new welfarist” to describe people or groups of people came into use.

Animal Welfarism

But what about the new guy on the block? At present, both “legal welfarism” and “new welfarist” seem to have been overtaken in popularity by the term “animal welfarism/ist”. A term that seems to imply both a general climate and a putatively identifiable group of people. The question on my mind is: what people?

It seems that papers referencing animal welfarism are talking about a setting in which the interests of the animal are not centered, or may be completely erased (Schmidt, 2011). The widest and most simple understanding of the term seems to be a leap back to the general ideas of “legal welfarism” but with a somewhat softer focus. Animal welfarism is the general cultural climate in which profit has more influence than interest in animals, and animal welfaists are people who believe in this or agree to go along with it.

However, at the same time, animal welfarism is sometimes used (e.g., Taylor, 1999) as a synonym for new welfarism - to only refer to people who wish to end animal exploitation but think improving animal welfare is an incremental step towards this goal (the position Francoine began this all by contesting).

(Meanwhile a few seem to equate “animal welfarism” with believing in the rights of animals to not be killed, Everett, 2001).

So… this could obviously cause some confusion. The multiple uses suggest “animal welfarism” is a relatively weak term for reliably communicating a single idea. However I think its most common meaning would be, as described by Lin (2016) as follows:

‘Welfarism is the belief that humans have the right to use animals as we see fit as long as they are treated humanely. There may be some uses where the benefit to humans is recognized as trivial compared to the amount of animal suffering, such as dogfighting or fur, where the use is believed to be unjustified. The term "welfarist," as an adjective, is used pejoratively by animal rights advocates to refer to a situation where animals will continue to be used with very minimal improvements in the care, confinement or slaughter of the animals’

Whither Welfarism?

For these reasons, to understand what someone means by “animal welfarism” (if they don’t define it) is to consider who is talking about what to whom. A critical animal science journal implicitly shares the goal of ending animal exploitation with the author and the audience. In his setting, anything that can be described as “animal welfarism” is probably being the present undesirable approach to animal liberation. This meaning applies whether the term is thought to only relate to animal rights activists using welfare improvement as an incremental step or all people engaging in the animal exploiting activity regardless of their goals.

It can be quite easy for people who do not have animal liberation goals to simply think they are exempt from “welfarist” criticisms. But is this really the case? Take for example a recent paper by Fragoso et al. (2023). This research suggests that a lot of research into animal welfare is devoid of language focusing on the animals ’ interests or feelings. The authors of this paper position welfarism as an approach that “cannot contribute to improving the possibilities for better lives for animals.” (This is yet another confusing definition, but it is focused on animal welfare science being underpowered in its influence). The paper appears in a journal with a wide scope and remit, so no particular underlying philosophy can be assumed (Animals, MDPI).

Fragoso et al’s results show that research papers that explicitly address animal welfare/well-being are typically coy about mentioning animal interests or feelings. Specifically, animal production journals generally do not mention them at all, while animal welfare journals are gradually mentioning them a little more often. These are interesting results and do beg the question. If authors do not hesitate to mention the often competing interests of human safety, efficiency, or profit, why are we often reticent to be explicit about what is important to the animal stakeholder? To what extent is animal welfare science valid when the animal as a stakeholder is erased? Regardless of whether one is sanguine about using animals (perhaps “humanely”) for human purposes, this seems like a valid question to consider.

I believe that animal welfare science is a pluralist space that concludes those who oppose animal use, those who don’t, and many in-between philosophies that carve out spaces where animal use is justified or ethical. This diversity in philosophies requires being open to different kinds of data that help us appreciate how animals are affected by what we do and how to act towards them in more ethical ways. (Reducing exploitation and reducing harm being different but intersectional goals). I don’t have to personally embrace any of these terms in any of their forms to engage with authors who use them (and benefit from reading their work). And as the term “animal welfarism/ist” continues to grow in popularity, we will all need to get used to navigating its many and changing meanings.

Bibliography

• Francione, G. (1995). Animals Property & The Law. Temple University Press.

• Francione, G. (1996). Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement.

• Taylor, N. (1999). Whither rights? Animal rights and the rise of new welfarism. Animal Issues, 3(1), 2.

• Everett, J. (2001). Environmental ethics, animal welfarism, and the problem of predation: A Bambi lover's respect for nature. Ethics and the Environment, 42-67.

• Schmidt, K. (2011). Concepts of animal welfare in relation to positions in animal ethics. Acta biotheoretica, 59, 153-171.

• Lin, D. (2016). What is welfarism as cited by Ng, Y. K. (2016). Utilitarianism generalized to include animals. Animal Sentience, 1(7), 19.

• Fragoso, A. A. H., Capilé, K., Taconeli, C. A., de Almeida, G. C., de Freitas, P. P., & Molento, C. F. M. (2023). Animal welfare science: why and for whom?. Animals, 13(11), 1833.