I've long been a big fan of Eva Meijer's work. Her books about animal language and communication are some of my favorite in terms of scholarship regarding the lives of other animals. As a result, I was excited to see this book coming out, especially from the independent press of VINE sanctuary.
Multispecies Assemblies is an act of both practicality and imagination. It involves thinking far outside of the box about how we can have participatory relationships with the rest of the natural world. Well this book went a little too far outside certain boxes for me at times, I still found the exercise itself to be brilliant. One of my biggest issues with animal liberation action and philosophy is that humans are often making decisions without truly thinking about what other animals want and experience. We tend to make decisions on how we feel about what we know. Even in many animal advocacy scenarios, there is a power dynamic that attracts people that do more harm than good at times. This is of course not unique to animal advocacy. Any sort of anti-authoritarian structure can attract those willing to exploit it. In the case of other than human animals, many on both sides of the divide will take advantage of the fact that the animals are not able to have a seat at the table.
In this book, Meijer asks us to imagine what it would be like if other beings did have a seat at the table. She offers strategies and many examples of what that may look like. The book is grounded enough that it is clear she is not saying we should have a round table discussion with fishes and trees anytime a decision needs to be made, as if that were possible. Rather, she takes steps to find ways to include others so that they cannot be forgotten in the conversation.
There are many examples where the author discusses how to make sure everything from a river to a bird can be included as much as possible in the decision making about their lives. She discusses how human representation will of course be necessary in these conversations. Yet, she also make sure to offer ways that we can best step aside and decenter ourselves.
One thing she mentions having learned from VINE Sanctuary is that humans making decisions should be in proximity to those who they are making decisions for. For instance, if decisions need to be made about what will happen to a wetland area, the discussion should be had while that area is in view. Decisions about an animals life should involve proximity to that animal. As long as oppression is out of sight it is much easier to excuse it. People forced to stand in a slaughterhouse would have a much harder time defending what is going on there, then if they were simply in an aisle at the grocery store. It is easier to defend our fast fashion purchases at a discount rack than it would be while standing in the middle of a sweatshop.
Where this book didn't fully work for me is how the author at times seemed to streamline the abilities and experience other species a bit too much. She seems to discuss plants and other parts of nature as having "cognition" and communication similar to animals. This is something that I found a bit frustrating. Meijer quotes from Braiding Sweetgrass (wherein the author asks trees for permission to kill them, but didn't mention this with animals, I assume because most animals tend to give a pretty emphatic and undeniable "no.") Plants also propagate from being killed and eaten among other things which would make suffering and pain completely incompatible evolutionary flaws common across far too many species for it to be a leftover maladaptive mutation. Plants are not communicating and having experiences of suffering like we animals do. We can discuss the importance of the natural world without needing to make them like us. Furthermore, this goes against the book's thesis as this is an anthropocentric action.
The elevation of plants and other natural structures to a false similarity with ourselves can also backfire. It can cause people open to the idea of considering other animals languages and experiences to distrust the author due to incorrect information and misuse of terms like cognition regarding plants. It can also give ammunition to the dishonest strawmanning that anti-animal sentiment brings up where people claim that plants have feelings and thus farming/exploiting animals is the same. Aside from the fact that it takes exponentially more plants in order to farm animals, nobody truly believes that stepping on grass is the same as kicking a puppy.
The other thing I found missing at times from this, which may be due to the limitations of the length of the essay, is the reality that these assemblies there will undoubtedly result in disagreements rooted in the way the natural world is as a whole. A balanced ecosystem has a wide range of creatures including animals that prey upon other animals. I am sure that a hawk has a different view than the vole on how things should go. Think of the debate around feral cats and the ecosystem imbalance that occurs as a result of humans introducing them.
I think that Meijer's scholarship regarding animal languages would have made this an extremely interesting direction to go in. I would like to hear an expansion of how to resolve conflicts about wounds that occur throughout nature that involve suffering but are simultaneously necessary/unavoidable. Without addressing this, the book can come off as a little naive, which has not been my experience with Meijer's other work.
I have said before that I often have the biggest, most detailed criticisms of authors that I like the most. I suppose I'm holding Meijer to a higher standard here than I would another precisely because I admire her work so much. The existence of this book in and of itself is quite a feat. Even trying to tackle the idea of having a cooperative interaction that goes beyond multiple species is the kind of progressive thinking I think we need in this world. These are the kind of discussions we need to be having. So, my criticisms are attempts to join the conversation, not silence it. I recommend this book wholeheartedly and I hope it starts a great many conversations and how we can resolve conflicts. Decentering the human is more important than ever in a dying world.
This was also posted to my goodreads and storygraph.