Combating Speciesism - Brill Online Books and Journals

society & animals 25 (2017) 456-474 brill.com/soan

Combating Speciesism

Is an Immersion Experience with Nonhuman Animals an Effective Strategy? Marion C. Willetts

Illinois State University, Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Normal, IL [email protected]

Abstract Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with six students prior to an alternative break trip to a companion and farmed animal sanctuary, along with participant observation of all student trip participants (n = 44) during the trip and at all pre- and post-trip events. Participants were overwhelmingly Anglo and female, and were enrolled at a Midwestern university. Results indicate that prior to the trip, the participants possessed minimal information about overpopulation of companion animals, vegetarianism, and factory farming, and were hesitant to embrace any lifestyle changes that would benefit animals. Additionally, enthusiasm for the volunteer work and interest in nonhuman animal well-being dropped precipitously over the course of the immersion experience. Results are discussed within the framework of Mezirow’s (1997, 2000) theory of transformative learning and Parks Daloz’s (2000) application of this theory to encouraging social activism. Recommendations are provided concerning how immersion experiences with animals may more effectively combat speciesism.

Keywords transformative learning – immersion experience – animal sanctuary

Introduction Over the last decade, universities have increasingly implemented servicelearning programs as a way of instilling in students greater awareness of social problems and motivation to translate that awareness into action (Jones, Rowan-Kenyon, Ireland, Niehaus, & Skendall, 2012). One form these programs

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��7 | doi 10.1163/15685306-12341455


457

may take is an alternative break trip of one to two weeks to perform volunteer work in another part of the U.S. or internationally. Students who participate in these trips perform service in the course of meeting a specific community’s needs, which may include issues as diverse as natural disaster relief or working with underprivileged children. Service-learning programs provide students with “hands-on” experience in addressing social problems that extends the knowledge they have acquired in the classroom (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Prior research has found that students benefit from such immersion experiences academically and also by experiencing greater sensitivity to social problems and an increased commitment to certain causes (Bowen, 2011), greater consideration for the subjects that they serve (Jones et al., 2012), and the acquisition of leadership skills (DuPre, 2010). Other scholars, however, have expressed doubts concerning the extent to which immersion experiences have any lasting impact on participants. For example, Piacitelli, Barwick, Doerr, Porter, and Sumka (2013) have discovered that “volunteer enthusiasm ebbs quickly” in part as a function of the “skewed perspective” offered by the media, which may be the only perspective to which students are exposed when preparing to perform service (p. 88). With regard to nonhuman animal rescue, the media typically focus on especially vulnerable animals (such as emaciated cats and dogs) or on dramatic rescues (such as a farmed animal escaping from a slaughterhouse), which may leave those preparing to perform service at an animal shelter believing that these are the kinds of experiences they will have. Such a perspective likely only leads to disappointment when volunteers learn that most of the tasks associated with animal rescue are mundane (such as cleaning up after animals and maintaining paperwork), which in turn may lead to their feeling demoralized and unmotivated to perform service. The lack of a transformation in attitudes and behaviors also may be a function of why some students volunteer to perform service work in the first place. Serow (1991) states that individuals tend to engage in volunteer work primarily because they believe doing so will either contribute to the fulfillment of their career goals or will provide an opportunity to develop friendships, rather than for altruistic purposes—motivations that likely are not conducive to long-term attitudinal or behavioral transformation. The purpose of this study is to explore the extent to which an alternative break trip to a companion and farmed animal sanctuary affects participants’ attitudes and behaviors regarding animals. Specifically, I explore students’ motivations to participate in an alternative break trip as well as their attitudes

Society & animals 25 (2017) 456-474

458

Willetts

and behaviors regarding animals before, during, and after the trip to assess the extent to which this immersion experience transforms participants’ perspectives and actions concerning animals.

Theoretical Framework

According to Mezirow’s (1997, 2000) theory of transformative learning, alternative break trips have the potential to alter participants’ perspectives of their social world by experiencing some kind of event(s) during the trip that challenges their way of seeing the world. Such an event “is often an intensely threatening emotional experience in which we have to become aware of both the assumptions undergirding our ideas and those supporting our emotional responses to the need to change” (2000, pp. 6-7). Casual experiences (e.g., playing with a puppy) will not challenge a trip participant’s views about animals. Instead, the experience must be one that causes a participant to fundamentally question his/her attitudes and practices. Such an experience may be either “epochal” (a singular and profound experience) or “incremental” (a series of events that progressively leads to transformation) (Mezirow, 2000, p. 21). According to Parks Daloz (2000), the event must be an encounter with an “other” who is different from the participant but with whom the participant experiences an empathic bond that results in “an alternative way of being, a different voice that challenged the earlier assumptions about how life is and made possible the construction of a new ‘we’ ” (p. 113). Merely witnessing an event is not sufficient to result in transformative learning. A participant also must think critically about it. As Mezirow (1997, 2000) explains, humans are inclined to reject those experiences that do not conform to their previously-held views of the world, as such experiences potentially could be defined as an assault on either their identity or understanding of phenomena. Thus, performing service on an alternative break trip is not sufficient in and of itself to result in long-term attitudinal or behavioral transformation; instead, critically reflecting upon that service is also required. Furthermore, given the cooperative nature of alternative break trips (students share sleeping quarters, cook meals together, and perform service together), critical reflection is more likely to result in transformative learning if it occurs within a group. Mezirow (2000) argues that “transformative learning involves participation in constructive discourse to use the experiences of others to assess reasons justifying these [previously-held] assumptions, and making an action decision based on the resulting insight” (p. 8). Furthermore, Belenky and Stanton (2000) assert that critical reflection is most beneficial Society & animals 25 (2017) 456-474


459

if conducted with others who are “well informed, free from coercion, listen actively, have equal opportunities to participate, and take a critical stance toward established cultural norms or viewpoints” (p. 71). Parks Daloz (2000) argues that mentors assisting individuals through the process of transformative learning are also critical for such learning to occur. The presence of such mentors implies a long-term relationship between mentor and protégé, which suggests that while the transformative experience could conceivably be a singular event, for the full process of transformative learning to occur there must be a long-term relationship with a mentor who serves to guide the learner. More recently, scholars have expanded Mezirow’s (1997, 2000) explication of transformative learning theory by both exploring the process underlying the learning experience, and through the development of additional theoretical conceptualizations (see the review by Taylor, 2008). These conceptualizations may be “psychoanalytic” (with an emphasis on individuation), “psychodevelopmental” (a life course perspective on transformative learning), and “socialemancipatory” (individuals are “constantly reflecting and acting on the transformation of their world so it can become a more equitable place for all to live”; Taylor, 2008, p. 8). What is crucial to this process is critical reflection so that learners may “develop an awareness of agency to transform society and their own reality” (Taylor, 2008, p. 8). While theorists generally agree on the importance of critical reflection in the process of transformative learning, some have called into question the ability of learners to actually engage in it. For example, Merriam (2004) asserts that while transformative learning may lead to a more evolved level of thinking, “critical reflection and reflective discourse assume a certain level of cognitive development, most likely something beyond Piaget’s fourth stage of formal operations,” and that “many adults do not operate at higher levels of cognitive functioning” (p. 63). Additionally, Taylor (2007) asserts that scholars “might have been too generous in assuming the presence of critical reflection … while making meaning of a transformative learning experience” (p. 186). And, Taylor (2008) states that “researchers found a lack of critical reflection among learners” because critical questions were not asked of each other, assumptions were not challenged, and techniques that have been found to stimulate reflection (e.g., journal writing) were not employed (p. 12).

Break Away: Alternative Breaks Connection

Break Away is a national 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 1991; its mission is “to train, assist, and connect campuses and communities in Society & animals 25 (2017) 456-474

460

Willetts

promoting quality alternative break programs that inspire lifelong active citizenship” (www.alternativebreaks2013.org/about/, n.d.). Break Away provides training to colleges, universities, and other non-profit organizations wishing to create “lifelong active citizens through these intensive service-learning programs.” Over 100 colleges and universities have Break Away chapters. According to Break Away, there are “Eight Components of a Quality Alter native Break” (www.alternativebreaks2013.org/philosophy/8components/, n.d.). These components include (a) an orientation to the organization for which the student participants will be performing service; (b) educational sessions concerning the social issue that is the focus of the trip; (c) training, or learning the skills necessary to perform service work; (d) performing service work for the organization; (e) participant reflection that connects service, education, and interaction with the community; (f) reorientation that occurs after the trip and connects trip experiences with future commitment to service; (g) diversity among student participants and attention to issues of power and oppression as they relate to service; and (h) trips that are alcohol- and drug-free. All eight components must be present for an optimal alternative break experience. At Illinois State University, the Dean of Students Office (DSO) administers all alternative break trips and makes all of the decisions concerning the trips, including what social issue is the focus of a given trip, the location of each trip, the application process and selection of participants, etc. In order to participate in the alternative break program, the DSO requires that applicants be in good academic (i.e., a minimum grade-point-average of 2.0) and disciplinary standing (i.e., not in violation of the university Code of Conduct). Students complete an application that undergoes a “blinded” review by two student team leaders selected by the DSO (students with previous alternative break experience and who have been selected to participate on a subsequent trip as team leaders). Applications are for participation in the program, rather than for a particular trip, and are scored on a rubric that includes measures assessing each applicant’s enthusiasm and respect for others, potential for growth, ability to demonstrate inclusivity and an appreciation for diversity, interest in various social issues, and commitment to service. Student team leaders review the applications with the stated goal of accepting for a given trip a group of students who are diverse with regard to having previous trip experience, gender, race/ethnicity, year in school, academic major, and interest in the particular social issue of the trip (applicants rank-order a list of approximately one dozen social issues). The DSO does not make applicants aware of the destination of the trip or what social issue is the focus of the trip until after they have been selected into the program. Once students are accepted into the program, the trip destination and social issue on which they will be working Society & animals 25 (2017) 456-474


461

are disclosed at the first orientation meeting (Harriett Steinbach and Annie Weaver, personal communication, September 6, 2013). The DSO recruits trip advisors among university faculty and staff with either prior alternative break experience or with expertise in the social issue that is the focus of a particular trip. The main function that trip advisors serve is to be in charge in the event of an emergency during the trip.

Materials and Methods

Participants A total of 44 undergraduate students and three trip advisors (I was one) from a large Midwestern university participated in a 10-day domestic alternative break trip to an animal sanctuary in Texas. The student participants represented various academic majors and years in school. A majority of student participants (n = 39) were female, consistent with prior research on alternative break participants (e.g., Jones et al., 2012). The majority of student participants were Anglo, with two African-American and two Asian-American participants. Participants were assigned to one of three teams, with each team also comprising one trip advisor. Each team was led by two student team leaders who were responsible for organizing and conducting all team activities. The team to which I was assigned comprises 14 female participants (including myself and the two student team leaders) and one male participant. The team also included one Asian-American and one African-American participant. All trip participants regardless of team membership perform service work together, share living quarters, and engage in some of the evening activities together. Other tasks, however, are performed only with one’s team members. Specifically, evening reflections are conducted in teams and are led by the student team leaders (participants were also encouraged to engage in individual reflection and were provided with notepads to record their observations, thoughts, etc.). Additionally, each evening meal is prepared by a specific team that cooks for all trip participants. Procedure Following Institutional Review Board approval, data were collected from the student participants via pre-trip interviews and participant observation prior to, during, and after the trip (all trip participants were made aware of my dual role as a trip advisor and as a researcher). I was informed prior to the trip that opportunities for participant observation would be restricted mainly to my own team members, so a purposive sampling strategy was employed that was Society & animals 25 (2017) 456-474

462

Willetts

intended to include in the pre-trip interview phase of data collection only the student participants who were assigned to the same team as myself, thereby restricting the total possible number of pre-trip interviews to fourteen subjects. Three separate recruitment e-mails were sent over a period of six weeks to all of my team members to request their participation in pre-trip interviews. Participants were informed that they would be asked a series of questions about their prior experience with alternative break trips and their motivations to participate, along with their attitudes toward and experiences with animals. In all, pre-trip interviews were conducted with six participants: three Anglo women, an African-American female, an Asian-American female, and the sole male team member participated in the pre-trip interview phase of data collection; four of these participants had previous alternative break trip experience. Each interview was approximately 45 minutes in length, and all were digitally recorded with the participants’ permission and transcribed verbatim (interview guide available by request). All of the pre-trip interviews were conducted after the educational session concerning overpopulation of companion animals and vegetarianism/factory farms. All subjects were assigned pseudonyms. Upon the conclusion of each interview, a written record was constructed that included a summary of it, verbatim transcription of particularly powerful or insightful comments, and notes on the theoretical implications. Excerpt files were also created that contained notes from the interviews that dealt with a particular issue (i.e., companion animal overpopulation or vegetarianism). Additionally, participant observation of all student trip participants (n = 44), with a special focus on my fellow team members (n = 14), was conducted at all six pre-trip events, during the three full service days and two half-days at the sanctuary, during the six evening activities and reflections while on the trip, and at the sole reorientation event (a celebratory dinner) following the trip. Fieldnotes were logged by hand in a notebook during all events, and service days and evening activities/reflections. The pre- and posttrip events were approximately one hour in duration, the evening reflections lasted approximately 45 minutes each, and the evening activities varied from approximately one hour (e.g., making t-shirts) to several hours (dinner in the nearby city). Full fieldnotes were constructed immediately after the pre- and posttrip events and evening activities/reflections. The fieldnotes were effectively a description of the participants, setting, events, and interactions as they occurred, in addition to my interpretation of them. The fieldnotes also Society & animals 25 (2017) 456-474


463

included suggested codes and memos for use in the full analysis of the data. Upon returning from the trip, the fieldnotes were typed into a word processing program for analysis (Lofland, Snow, Anderson, & Lofland, 2006). The Setting Participants performed their volunteer work at a no-kill animal sanctuary on several hundred acres of land. The facility houses over 800 animals, both companion (e.g., dogs and cats) and farmed (e.g., cows, horses, donkeys, chickens, etc.). Many animals are available for adoption; those for whom adoption is unsuitable live permanently at the sanctuary. The dogs (n = 300+) live either singly or in pairs/groups in outdoor enclosures, with shelter for protection from the elements. Several dozen cats live in an air-conditioned shed with a large, screened-in porch, as do several dozen chickens. Approximately three dozen cows, horses, donkeys, and guinea fowl range freely throughout the sanctuary. Roughly 400 feral pigs live in groups in very large pens. In short, the facility differs from a traditional shelter in that animals are not kept in cages or kennels but instead live mainly outdoors. The animals are cared for by the owner of the land who lives on-site and by five full-time employees who range in duration of employment from two weeks to eighteen years. Analytical Strategy An issue-focused analysis was undertaken (Weiss, 1994). The focus of the pretrip interviews was to assess participants’ prior experience with alternative break trips and their motivations to participate in them, in addition to eliciting current attitudes and experiences with animals. The focus of the participant observation component was to observe the daily activities in which participants engage before, during, and after the immersion experience; their comfort level while around animals; and to provide a foundation for gauging the nature of and extent to which transformative learning occurs as a function of their service work coupled with critical reflection of that work. In both the verbatim transcriptions of the pre-trip interviews and the typed fieldnotes from the participant observation component, both initial and focused coding were conducted (Lofland et al., 2006). Both setting-specific and analytic files were created to assist in the analysis. The setting-specific files were largely descriptive and included data on the participants as individuals and on the setting in which the service or other trip-related activity occurred. The analytic files were constructed for inductive analysis of the interview and participant observation data and to explore to what extent, if any, transformative learning had occurred, what factors promoted such learning, and what barriers prohibited it. Society & animals 25 (2017) 456-474

464

Willetts

Results Pre-Trip Interviews When the six subjects interviewed prior to the trip were asked why they wished to participate in an alternative break trip, they shared two primary motivations. One motivation was to perform service. This motivation, however, demonstrated the benefits of performing service to the volunteers themselves, rather than to the recipients of the service work. Specifically, these participants referred to the psychological boost they experience when performing service. For example, Alicia, a student team leader with prior alternative break experience, explained that “the feeling you get when you help someone is just amazing.” The other primary motivation also was indicative of the benefits of the trip to the participants and concerned the acquisition of new experiences and friendships. For example, Alicia stated that she had initially applied for an international trip because “I’ve never really traveled internationally before, and I thought that would be a completely different experience.” Similarly Nancy, who has little travel experience and who has not previously participated in an alternative break trip, explained that “I’ve been kind of enclosed in this area for a while; I haven’t really branched out of [state].” In addition, participants commented on how the trips were a good opportunity to meet new people. Daniel, also without previous alternative break experience, stated that the volunteer work he performed in high school allowed him to make a lot of friends, a sentiment echoed by Alicia: “It’s really refreshing to be with people who … aren’t in my field, and by the end of the week we’re all so close.” These participants’ reactions were mixed upon learning that the purpose of the trip was to work at an animal sanctuary. Some of these participants were very positive; for example, Catherine stated that she “was so happy … because that is one of my preferred interests,” whereas Alicia explained that she had “not heard of an animal-focused trip before, and I just thought that would be great.” Others, however, expressed hesitation over working with animals. Karen said, “I was nervous at first, because I am highly allergic to anything with fur, so I was like, um, okay, so what am I going to do on this trip … I’ll just have to bring my medicine, I guess.” In addition, Nancy is fearful of animals and had considered dropping out of the trip as a result. She explained that she overcame her fear by telling herself, [T]he reason why you’re going on this trip is to get new experiences and learn about new things, and if you knew everything about animals and you loved animals so much, you probably wouldn’t gain anything.… Society & animals 25 (2017) 456-474


465

Regardless of their mixed reactions upon learning the social issue of this particular alternative break trip, these participants all had previous experience interacting with companion animals such as dogs and cats, whether as a function of being reared in families with them or having had friends or relatives who shared their homes with animals. Only Dorothy, however, had ever visited any kind of animal shelter. This lack of exposure to shelters is reflected in both the participants’ lack of knowledge concerning animals in shelters and in their attitudes toward them. More specifically, only Dorothy and Alicia were aware that overpopulation of cats and dogs exists. Additionally, several of these participants expressed negative views of shelter animals. Daniel, for example, stated that animals in shelters “are abused or abandoned.… I usually picture either a really aggressive animal or a really jumpy and scared [one] that’s … afraid of people,” and Nancy stated that animals are in shelters because “they weren’t trained a certain way.” These participants had no experience with farmed animals beyond visiting a “petting zoo” or taking a horseback riding lesson. And although four of these six participants possessed some very rudimentary information concerning the treatment of farmed animals raised for food, all of them engage in the practice of eating animals, with some of these participants dismissing abuses of farmed animals as aberrant. For example, Daniel stated that while he’s “seen snippets of people or a PSA [public service announcement] video on TV where they show really bad, maybe a pig or cow, just hung, just really grotesque stuff, I usually assume it’s very [much] an exception to what it usually is.” Karen also asserted that the treatment of farmed animals “depends on where the farm is located and how many resources they have.” This desire to eat animals was also evident when planning meals for the trip. At one of the pre-trip events, participants discussed within their respective teams whether their team should be vegetarian for the duration of the trip. Numerous participants complained about not having dietary options; therefore, all student team leaders decided that both vegetarian and non-vegetarian options would be available at every meal. When the six interviewed participants were asked whether they planned on being vegetarian for the trip, three stated that they would make the attempt, with two also saying that they did not plan on making it permanent. For example, Daniel stated that while he was, … excited about eating vegetarian and seeing how hard it is and if I actually like all the food the whole way … I don’t anticipate changing my diet afterwards. It has to be extremely impactful.… I’m worried if it will be enough to actually get me to change, because I think that’s such a huge thing; I just can’t see that changing. Society & animals 25 (2017) 456-474

466

Willetts

Dorothy stated that while she would eat a vegetarian diet during the trip, her main concern was that, I feel like in my diet if I don’t eat meat, I’m craving meat.… I also fear what I would eat if I didn’t eat meat. Others said they would not be vegetarian on the trip because “I’m just stubborn and picky” (Karen), and “I just think it would be, to be frank, too hard, and I’m just too lazy” (Alicia). Only Nancy, the participant who is fearful of animals and considered dropping out of the trip altogether, stated that she could envision becoming a vegetarian: I’m really excited about it actually. I want to see how this plays out with me. I was actually one of the people who said I think we really should [eat vegetarian during the trip] … since this is our issue, we should try to advocate some kind of good, positive change that we can do personally. Finally, these participants were asked to speculate on what effects they believed the trip may have on them. Interestingly, only Nancy mentioned any behavioral change (discussed above). Instead, these participants believed that the trip “will open up my eyes to more of what’s going on in the social issue, because I never really did think about it much before,” or that “it will just expand my knowledge.” Daniel stated that I hope it will maybe change me, but I don’t know what would actually get me to actually make a meaningful step to change. We watch documentaries all the time where you see something is really bad … but it’s really hard even if you know it’s the right thing to do to get someone to actually make a concrete step and actually do something. In summary, these six interviews provide a foundation for the participant observation component of the research. The interviews inform us of the motivations of students to participate in an alternative break trip, their knowledge of animal issues and attitudes toward and experiences with animals, and what long-term outcomes they expect for themselves as a function of their participation. As these results indicate, these six participants were generally ignorant of animal issues, and while half of them were willing to experiment with vegetarianism while on the trip, only one could envision continuing with vegetarianism upon returning.



467

Participant Observation Prior to the Trip Six pre-trip events were held, including the first event where the destination of the trip and the social issue were revealed. Other events included an educational presentation (during which participants learned about issues concerning animals, such as overpopulation and vegetarianism), two social events, a service afternoon at a local animal shelter, and a final meeting to receive logistical information. Fewer than half of the trip participants visited the local animal shelter for the pre-trip service afternoon, which occurred over a weekend. Those who did perform the service were randomly assigned to one of three tasks by a shelter employee: cleaning an examination room, walking dogs, or playing with the cats. One participant who was cleaning the exam room complained: “Why are we stuck doing this when other people get to walk dogs?” Another participant who spent her time walking dogs expressed her satisfaction with her assignment, and explained later that she was looking forward to our service trip as “we get to do this all day!” These comments illustrate the notion that volunteer work should be an enjoyable activity and not constitute actual work. A more equitable assignment of tasks likely would have resulted in a more positive experience for some of the participants Participant Observation during the Trip Our first day of service included a tour of the animal sanctuary, followed by a sack lunch. Participants then divided themselves loosely into groups regardless of team membership and engaged in various projects of their own choosing that continued throughout the week, including feeding the animals, shoveling manure, cleaning out storage sheds, digging trenches for water pipes and electrical wiring, and taking animals to visit residents at a nursing home. As a result, some participants only engaged in the most enjoyable tasks (e.g., interacting with the animals), while other participants devoted much of their time to the less enjoyable but more necessary tasks (e.g., cleaning). Evening activities were conducted with all trip participants and were followed by team reflections. These activities included watching a documentary chosen by me entitled “The Emotional World of Farm Animals” (Minasian, 2004) that was followed by a discussion on vegetarianism and veganism, making t-shirts, a dinner in a local city, and a celebratory pizza dinner during our last evening in Texas. The team reflections following the all-participant evening activities included making a collage of animal issues from magazine pictures, making bracelets with beads of different colors representing various animal issues (e.g., vegetarianism, cosmetics testing on animals), a discussion of each


468

Willetts

participant’s “favorite thing/most unexpected thing that happened today,” and drawing pictures of and writing short stories about the sanctuary animals, along with discussions each night of the participants’ emotional reactions to the day’s events. Issues of power and oppression were discussed during only one evening reflection; however, one of the student team leaders (an elementary education major) chose bullying in schools as the topic for this discussion rather than anything associated with animals. Observations of all participants throughout the course of the week indicated that they effectively could be assigned to one of three groups on the basis of their apparent interest and productivity. One group, approximately 25% of the total, was often seen throughout the day sitting at picnic tables, chatting, and playing games. Some members of this group made an effort to look more engaged but were nonetheless not significant contributors to the work effort, instead playing with the cats or wandering around the property taking pictures. A second group, also about 25% of the total, was very active at work and rarely hesitated to perform a task. They were seen doing the dirtiest, least desirable, and most physically intensive tasks, such as shoveling manure. The remaining 50% of students started with enthusiasm and motivation that deteriorated throughout the course of the week, resulting in decreased work activity. Among participants in this group, an increasing amount of time was devoted to chatting with friends, with many of these participants by the end of the week scarcely doing any work or interacting with any of the animals. In short, it appeared that the novelty of the service experience wore off very quickly for most of the trip participants. Some also appeared to have little ability to engage in sustained physical work, stating that they “needed a break” after one and a half days of service. This deterioration of interest and productivity throughout the week among many participants was also evident in the evening activities and team reflections. Early in the week, most students were engaged and motivated. For example, after viewing the documentary on farmed animals, participants asked numerous questions about my own experiences with vegetarianism, and also debated arguments concerning vegetarianism. During the team reflections early in the week, participants commented on how “happy I am to see how much progress we made in one day,” and how the owner of the sanctuary property “really appreciates everything we’ve done.” Others commented on feeling “rewarded” by the work and “very exhilarated” by how the animals made them feel. By the sixth evening, however, participants’ enthusiasm was almost completely absent. Participants complained about there being “too much sitting down time; we need more concrete projects to do,” and that the owner of the Society & animals 25 (2017) 456-474


469

sanctuary property “doesn’t give enough direction.” Others complained about having inadequate tools to do the work that was necessary. Additionally, one participant complained about not having more “dramatic moments” in working with the animals: “When we made that human wall [to move pigs from one pen to another], I was expecting 100 pigs, and it was so disappointing that only six came out.” There was plenty of work to do; however, it was not the kind of dramatic animal rescue work that is often portrayed by the media. With over 800 animals on-site, the majority of whom are farmed animals, there was always plenty of manure to shovel. Fences required repair, and labor was needed to clean the property of dead brush. These tasks clearly do not make for a dramatic rescue of an adorable puppy or kitten from an abusive situation. Most students became very disinterested in these mundane aspects of animal rescue work and as a result performed little in the way of service. Furthermore, those who earlier in the week enjoyed interacting with the animals seemed to have become bored as the week progressed, thereby decreasing the likelihood of experiencing a sustained empathic bond with animals that in turn had the potential to result in transformative learning. And, because the minority of hardworking volunteers performed the most necessary labor at the sanctuary that typically did not involve hands-on work with animals, they too did not have the opportunity to develop an empathic bond with the animals that could have resulted in transformative learning. Interestingly, while many students complained about not having enough work to do at the service site, some of the same students also complained about the student trip leaders having planned too many activities and having “scheduled everything to the minute.” These students stated that they wanted more free time. While some legitimately complained about not getting enough sleep, others appeared to want more free time so that they may surf the Internet on their cell phones or call their parents. The lack of free time, however, also detracted from the participants’ ability to engage in critical selfreflection of their daily service experiences. Participants also were observed complaining about the vegetarianism that existed during the trip and expressing gratitude that they “didn’t feel pressured” to go vegetarian. Mary, one of the two African-American women on the trip, was especially vocal in her disdain for vegetarianism. During our evening in the local city, we ate dinner together at a local restaurant, and were all served the same vegetarian meal. Mary complained throughout the entire evening, insisting repeatedly that she “paid for meat on this trip.” Mary had an active dislike of animals and refused throughout the trip to be open-minded to learning about animal issues, resulting in her getting very little (if anything) out of the trip. She Society & animals 25 (2017) 456-474

470

Willetts

consistently made negative comments about vegetarianism and animals during the course of the trip and was very critical of the decision by Nancy, the only other African-American participant, to try a vegetarian burger one evening. Participant Observation Following the Trip Only one post-trip event was held, which was a celebratory dinner. The event was held with participants from an international break trip. During the event, students reminisced about their respective trips, watched slide shows of them, and made plans to socialize later. I observed no discussion of animal issues; instead, this event was truly a social activity and did not include any critical reflection or reorientation as promoted by Break Away (www.alternativebreaks2013.org/philosophy/8components, n.d.). Discussion In summary, over the course of the trip the motivation to perform service work and the productivity of many trip participants deteriorated quickly, with an increasing number of students also losing interest in the animals. One possible cause of this deterioration may be a function of including on the trip participants who were never truly interested in either the animals or performing service. Recall Serow’s (1991) assertion that some participants choose to go on alternative break trips purely for self-interested reasons; that is, to enhance their future career goals or to develop friendships. The pre-trip interviews demonstrate that traveling to new places and making new friends was a primary motivation among these participants. In addition, recall that participants are not informed of the social issue that is the focus of the trip until after they have been accepted into the program. The consequence of accepting for participation those with either no interest in service work or who have an active dislike or fear of animals is that some participants refused to engage in the issue of animal well-being or were downright resentful of it. This resistance to the issue in turn effectively eliminates the possibility of transformative learning for these participants. Furthermore, such negatively among some of the participants may have served to dampen the enthusiasm of other trip participants, in turn further decreasing the likelihood that transformative learning will occur for anyone. Failure to effectively implement all eight components of a successful alternative break trip as outlined by Break Away (www.alternativebreaks2013.org/ philosophy/8components/, n.d.) also likely played a significant role in the lack of enthusiasm and productivity on the trip. Specifically, most of the evening Society & animals 25 (2017) 456-474


471

activities were only weakly related to the social issue, and the team reflections consisted primarily of tasks designed to encourage discussion of students’ emotional reactions to the day’s events rather than on making connections between their service experiences and issues of animal well-being, power, oppression, etc. The rigid scheduling of activities by the student team leaders also left little time for the participants to engage in individual reflection, and the post-trip event included no critical reflection of the social issue that was the focus of the trip or discussion of future service opportunities at animal sanctuaries. The lack of time during the trip for individual reflection, coupled with the inadequacy of group reflections and the absence of a true reorientation after the trip, decreases the likelihood that participants will be engaged in the particular social issue that is the focus of the trip (Piacitelli et al., 2013). As demonstrated by the results, it is clear that this particular immersion experience at an animal sanctuary had little to no impact on the speciesism expressed by the participants. Some participants were consistently resistant to the issue and to any impact it could potentially have on them. They persisted in eating meat throughout the course of the trip and refused to entertain the notion of experimenting with vegetarianism. Additionally, while some participants had started the trip motivated to learn about animal issues, most of them lost this motivation over the course of their service. If individuals lose interest in animal well-being while working at an animal sanctuary, they can hardly be expected to make any lasting attitudinal or behavioral changes upon their return from the trip. It must be noted, however, that transformative learning may have been more evident if those participants who retained their motivation to perform service throughout the course of the trip had more opportunity to work directly with the animals, rather than performing other sanctuary tasks. Furthermore, transformative learning may have been more likely if participants had the opportunity to work with animals who were in immediate danger, rather than with animals who were safe at the sanctuary. As discussed earlier, a more dramatic rescue experience may be more likely to result in a participant fundamentally questioning his/her attitudes and behaviors. Additionally, while there is no evidence that transformative learning had occurred, it may be the case that the trip was effective in encouraging students to begin reflecting on issues of animal welfare, which in turn may translate into attitudinal and behavioral change in the future. So, how might animal advocates encourage others to reflect upon and transform their speciesist attitudes and behaviors? Clearly, exposure to animals at a sanctuary, coupled with two educational sessions concerning animals issues (one prior to the trip and one during the trip), are not sufficient in and of Society & animals 25 (2017) 456-474

472

Willetts

themselves for transformative learning to occur. As this research demonstrated, an immersion experience with farmed animals at a sanctuary was not sufficient to motivate many of the trip participants even to eat a vegetarian diet just during the trip itself. One necessary component that is often absent in attempts to engage the public in animal issues is critical reflection. Recall that according to Mezirow (2000), critical reflection must occur for attitudinal and/or behavioral transformation to result; as the results of this study indicate, such transformation does not occur without this reflection. Most of the exposure to animal issues that the public receives takes the form of brief snippets—a television advertisement for a companion animal welfare group, for example. If animal advocates are able to create opportunities for critical reflection led by trained facilitators (and alternative break programs should consider implementing a more rigorous training regimen for student team leaders to facilitate such discussion, in addition to a series of post-trip events that includes opportunities for such reflection), attitudinal and behavioral transformation may result. A longer post-trip reorientation will also allow for relationships with mentors which, as discussed earlier, Parks Daloz (2000) asserts are necessary for long-term attitudinal and behavioral transformation to occur. There are several limitations to this study. First, a selection effect is evident, as the research participants were students who chose to apply for an alternative break trip; most students do not apply. Second, while all attempts were made to minimize researcher bias, it is undeniable that bias is present given the researcher’s own experiences with and perspectives on animals. Simultaneously serving as both a trip advisor and a researcher on the trip may have increased the likelihood of bias. Future research should include a team of researchers that could participate in the trip and measure the extent of complementarity present in their observations. Third, the number of pre-trip interviews that were conducted is small. Limiting the pre-trip interviewing phase of the data collection exclusively to my student team members appears in retrospect to have served only to reduce the possible number of interviews that could have been conducted. Fourth, post-trip interviews were not conducted. Future research should include this phase of data collection to determine the extent to which, if at all, students believed that their trip experience was a meaningful one, even if this perspective was not evident during the trip itself. Ideally, a longitudinal study should be conducted to assess whether the effects of an alternative break trip are retained by participants over time and in what ways, if at all, they influence the participants’ attitudes and behaviors concerning the social issue that is the focus of the trip. Society & animals 25 (2017) 456-474


473

Conclusion Despite these limitations, the current study has contributed significantly to our understanding of the ability of immersion experiences to encourage transformative learning in several ways. First, alternative break trips to animal sanctuaries are very unusual, as most trips are devoted to social problems that purportedly serve human animals only. Second, this study included data collected via both in-depth interviews and participant observation. Most studies employ survey methods to collect data that rely on participants’ self-reported attitudes to measure the extent to which transformative learning occurs in service-learning programs. Third, this study highlighted the importance of multiple opportunities for critical reflection by trained facilitators both during and after the trip as a necessary factor in producing attitudinal and behavioral transformation. As the results indicate, social change for the benefit of animals cannot occur without such continuous and rigorous reflection. In summary, this study has demonstrated that both active participation in animal issues and critical examination of that participation within the broader context of oppression and power are necessary factors, though possibly not sufficient ones, in effecting social change that would improve conditions for animals in a variety of contexts. Acknowledgment The author wishes to thank Nick G. Maroules and the reviewers of Society & Animals for comments on earlier drafts of this paper. References Belenky, M. F., & Stanton, A. V. (2000). Inequality, development, and connected knowing. In J. Mezirow and Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 71-102). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bowen, G. A. (2011). Fostering college students’ civic commitment through alternative breaks. Journal for Civic Commitment, 16(1), 1-13. Break Away. (n.d.). About Break Away. Retrieved July 16, 2013, from http://www .alternativebreaks2013.org/about/. Break Away. (n.d.). Eight Components of a Quality Winter Break. Retrieved July 16, 2013, from http://www.alternativebreaks2013.org/philosophy/8components/.


474

Willetts

DuPre, C. (2010). Campus commons: Alternative break service trips. About Campus, 15 (July-August), 25-28. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E. (1999). Where’s the learning in service learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Jones, S. R., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., Ireland, S. M., Niehaus, E., & Skendall, K. C. (2012). The meaning students make as participants in short-term immersion programs. Journal of College Student Development, 53(2), 201-220. Lofland, J., Snow, D., Anderson, L., & Lofland, L. H. (2006). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Merriam, S. B. (2004). The role of cognitive development in Mezirow’s transformational learning theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(1), 60-68. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74 (Summer), 5-12. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow and Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3-33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Minasian, S. (2004). The emotional world of farm animals (DVD). Retrieved January 7, 2012, from http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-emotional-world-of-farm-animals/. Parks Daloz, L. A. (2000). Transformative learning for the common good. In J. Mezirow and Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 103-123). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Piacitelli, J., Barwick, M., Doerr, E., Porter, M., & Sumka, S. (2013). Alternative break programs: From isolated enthusiasm to best practices—the Haiti compact. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 17(2), 87-109. Serow, R. C. (1991). Students and voluntarism: Looking into the motives of community service participants. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 543-556. Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999-2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(2), 173-191. Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2008, 5-15. DOI: 10.1002/ace.301. Retrieved February 22, 2014, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ace.301/abstract. Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: The Free Press.
