Event Report: Jeffrey Nicolaisen - Inequality of Equalities
Talk Title: 平等間的不平等:台灣漢族佛教徒與泰雅族獵人之間(不)可通約的存有論協商 Inequality of Equalities: The Negotiation of the (In)Commensurable Ontologies of Han Buddhists and Atayal Hunters in Taiwan
Date/Location: 2022/04/13, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (Hsinchu, Taiwan) [Original flyer]
Introduction
In our current state of environmental change and decline
in species diversity worldwide, we must re-contextualise
our relationships with our surroundings and co-inhabitants.
Within this lies the need to interrogate existing cultural
constructions of “equality” that permeate law, religion and
politics, especially considering the interests of non-human
animals. Presenting at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung
University 國立陽明交通大學 (Hsinchu, Taiwan), environmental
humanist Jeffrey Nicolaisen 倪杰 suggests alternatives to
positions regarding animal rights and the equality of
species. Through multi-disciplinary efforts intersecting
religious studies, law and ethnography, he firstly
demonstrates the plurality of attitudes towards
inter-species relations in Taiwan. He then suggests
adopting an “equality of life” 生命平等, as an alternative to
current anthropocentrisms, based on Western legal standards
and liberal humanism. Rich in analysis and detail, the talk
situates itself at the centre of discussions surrounding
our current global ecological disaster. And offers viable
alternative future pathways that take into account the
well-being of all life on Earth. This event report seeks to
firstly present a succinct account of the talk in question,
describing its contents and conclusions with broad detail.
Additionally, this work contains a brief discussion and
question section further summarising and fleshing out the
points made above. Due to space considerations, this report
emphasises some details over others. Therefore, I invite
readers to consult the pre-recorded lectures in Mandarin
and English,
and Jeffrey Nicolaisen’s published works on the
subject.
Lecture Notes - Introduction
As highlighted above, Jeffrey Nicolaisen based his
discussion on ethnography and the critical reading of works
intersecting law, Buddhist studies, indigenous studies and
history. His research firstly pertains to the Buddhist
animal protection organisation, Life Conservationist
Association 關懷生命協會. Secondly, he presents findings from
indigenous Christian Tayal 泰雅族 communities in Jianshi
Township, emphasising their quasi-legal framework of the
gaga. In the first part of the talk Nicolaisen
establishes the basic research question, namely what is
equality? He does this through analysing two different
categories of equality, namely the conventional notion of
human equality 人人平等, and the equality of life 生命平等.
Nicolaisen conducts his discussion via ontological
analysis, concentrating on four key points. He does this by
firstly horizontally situating the relevant intellectual
and cultural movements at play, namely Christianity,
Buddhism, Liberalism, and the gaga. Secondly, the
researcher seeks to challenge the applicability of the
conventional categories of nature 自然 and religion 宗教 in
terms of traditional Chinese religions. He then further
seeks to consider how current legal definitions of
religion, and the separation of church and state, serve to
actually suppress non-theistic traditions. Lastly,
Nicolaisen discusses alternative frameworks for Western
liberalism in the context of the equality of life.
On Equality
By the normative notion of equality, Nicolaisen refers
to the work of Enlightenment thinker John Locke
(1632-1704). As he explains, it is Locke’s Natural
Rights, and the universal equality between people, that
remains the basis for legal definitions of equality today.
Citing legal scholar Jeremy Waldron (1953-), the speaker
suggests how few people today would question the
justifications for this formulation of equality. This
concept, however, relies on Christian ethical and
intellectual foundations to be applicable, with equality
being something guaranteed by a Christian formulation of
God. Non-Christians do not have, as Locke would understand
it, the capacity to know either God, or the values bestowed
by God for humanity. Turning to Buddhism, the notion of an
equality of life points to a much older Asian notion
of equality. This is in turn promoted in Taiwan by the
Buddhist nun and Religious studies professor, Shih
Chao-hwei 釋昭慧 (1957-) and her co-founded Life
Conservationist Association 關懷生命協會. This approach to
equality is one that is less anthropocentric, not
differentiating between the human and animal domains. Her
approach does not only concern the protection of non-human
animals, but also addresses issues specific to the human
realm, such as same-sex rights, nuclear power, etc. With
this in mind, Buddhist sources can provide alternative
frameworks to human/non-human equality, one that stresses
equal kindness to all sentient beings.
The Gaga
After establishing the theoretical foundations for his
discussion, Nicolaisen turns to explicating the
ethnographic aspects of his work. The supporting data for
his discussion come from the remote Tayal mountain hamlet
of Tbhahu (Tianpu) 田埔部落, in Hsinchu, Northern Taiwan. Of
primary interest here is the gaga (“law”) of the Tayal,
originally referring to head-hunting, but today replaced by
the hunting of non-human animals. As an activity guided by
gaga, hunting follows internal regulatory measures for
sustainable practices, including believed moral rewards for
successfully hunts. In terms of equality and the gaga,
there are differing interpretations, for example,
concerning the status of non-human animals in the Tayal
afterlife. This includes views in which human and non-human
animals become bonded through the act of hunting, whereby
both parties can crossover to the afterlife. As Nicolaisen
explains, this interpretation suggests a form of equality,
with non-human animals also carrying an (immortal) soul.
One can find other interpretations that point to an
equality of life in contemporary Tayal publications and
media. For example, in the 2019 film Rainbow
Judgement, based on Tayal author Rimuy Aki’s 里慕伊.阿紀
(1962-) book of the same name, suggests an equality based
on killing. In this context, the Tayal are to respect all
life that is apart from their own and subject to hunting
practices.
Regarding Hunting Law
The speaker then turns to discussing contemporary legal
problems regarding inter-species and ethnic relations in
Taiwan. He highlights issues revolving around the popular
religious practice of the “release of life” 放生, and the
legality of Tayal hunting. Issues concerning the release of
life point to the haphazard setting free of certain
animals, some unsuited for the Taiwanese environment. This
includes instances whereby, for example, the Buddhist
Chinese Life Protection Association 中華護生協會 set free
poisonous snakes into inhabited regions, both indigenous
and non-indigenous. While historically associated with
Buddhism, many Buddhists in Taiwan today, including Shih
Chao-hwei, oppose release of life ceremonies. The nun
points to the fact that followers of popular religion,
including some nominally Buddhist and Daoist groups, have a
utilitarian view of this practice. In this regard, these
groups believe such rituals can increase one’s positive
karma, at the unwitting expense of mistreating non-human
subjects. Christian indigenous groups see these ceremonies
as incursions and attempts at Han ’multi-species’
colonisation, that threaten community integrity and general
well-being. There are no specific provisions for release of
life rituals in Taiwanese law, further aggravating the
sense of encroachment felt by the Tayal.
Early Taiwanese hunting law since the 1970’s, while
intending to preserve declining populations of native
species, however, included prohibitions inadvertently
targeting indigenous hunting practices. As Nicolaisen
explains, legal efforts to regulate wildlife in Taiwan
carry the Lockean formulation of equality, which only takes
into account human needs. Non-human animals are
subsequently relegated as resources or commodities.
Buddhist organisations backed these movements as they
inadvertently connoted a decrease of non-violence towards
animals, further solidifying colonising sentiments by
indigenous hunter groups. To address this, indigenous
groups lobbied the international community, with
recognition gained in the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Furthermore, the domestic
Indigenous Peoples Basic Law 原住民基本法 (2005) legalised the
hunting of wild animals in the context of traditional
culture and sustenance. However, hunting practices are at
odds with efforts by conservationist organisations, notably
the Life Conservationist Association (LCA) 關懷生命協會 and the
Eco-Conservation Alliance (ECA) 生態保育聯盟. The LCA/ECA 1994
draft of the Wildlife Conservation Act have come into
conflict with the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law, with
determination’s favoured towards the former. As Nicolaisen
concludes, while centred on non-human animals, the
discussions above still reflect human biases, with the
needs of animals ignored.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the ecological policy of the different
players above is fundamentally determined by human rights,
based on the Lockean concept of human equality. There is no
consideration of the interests of non-human animals, with
ecological discussions framed in terms of Western
liberalism and the current overarching hegemonic system.
However, the notion of an equality of life presents an
alternative to these prevailing world views. Although
Buddhist thinking prohibits killing, and the gaga
(according to contemporary readings) characterises itself
by hunting, both take into consideration the interests
of non-humans. However, the concept of the gaga and
Buddhist nonviolence, struggle to gain recognition because
of the current emphasis on human equality. To overcome
this, Buddhists (represented by Shih Chao-hwei) seek to
align themselves with secular and international
organisations. This includes allying with contemporary
thinkers on animal rights, such as utilitarian philosopher
and professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer (1946-).
Nicolaisen argues that this is to establish a sense of
“secular” legitimacy as a movement in the face of
established organisations such as the LCA. In this regard,
the speaker suggests compromises between Tayal and
Buddhists, involving recognition of opposing stances on the
issue. Furthermore, this includes ways to introduce any
overlap between ontologies, to question the prevailing idea
of human equality based ecological thinking.
Discussion and Questions
After the presentation by Jeffrey Nicolaisen, the
participants asked several insightful questions. I have
selected and summarised three below, and invited readers to
also consult the pre-recorded lectures for the expanded
discussion.
On Buddhist Cosmology
The first question revolved around Buddhist cosmology,
and the concept of transmigration in the six levels of
saṃsāric existence 輪迴. The question sought to
reconcile the apparent contradiction between equality and
the different levels of (seemingly) hierarchical
existence in Buddhist thought. In approaching this
question, the speaker adopted Waldron’s reading of John
Rawls’ (1921-2002) concept of ’range property.’ This
points to the idea that beyond a threshold all are equal
within a certain range. Here, for example, Locke’s range
property for all humans is that we possess rationality
and virtue. However, not all humans are equal in terms of
genetics, educational background, environmental factors,
etc. In terms of Shih Chao-hwei, her range property for
all beings (within saṃsāra) is that they are equally
sentient, subject to dependant arising 緣起, and able to
become buddhas. This pragmatic response indicates that
when arbitrating between the equality of two sentient
beings, one must ask how close is this animal to
Buddhahood? As Nicolaisen highlights, a “sage” is always
closer to Buddhahood over an endangered snake. However,
one who is closer to Buddhahood is also more ethical,
which takes priority when dealing with, for example, the
protection of said endangered snake.
The Teleology of Buddhism and Peter Singer
The second discussion point further dealt with the
utilitarian aspects of Shih Chao-hwei’s approach to
equality. The question highlighted the seeming elite
status of those more capable of (or closer to)
Buddhahood, as beings who are perhaps more “equal” than
others. The danger is to prefer those who further along
the Buddhist path, and so a crucial issue is to safeguard
the inherent rights of others as well. As Nicolaisen
points out, in any system there will inevitably be
situations where one has to place the interests of one
against another. In confronting this contradiction, the
Buddhist’s and Tayal have their own answers. For Shih
Chao-hwei, one must always try to root these choices in
the basic Buddhist assumption of non-harming 不害. However,
humans are never fully capable of appreciating all the
factors at play when making such decisions, with
conflicts of interest always becoming apparent. In this
sense, people require some hierarchy, with Shih
Chao-hwei, for example, suggesting we look at which party
is closer to potentially achieving Buddhahood. Nicolaisen
also highlights the thought of Singer who suggests that
all parties are equal because they feel and have
sentience. However, Singer opposes blanket animal rights,
preferring a softer form of equality that takes into
account the interests of said party. However, both
Singer and Shih Chao-hwei would always choose the human
over the poisonous snake. Taking into account range
property, we do not have to think of everything as being
part of an undifferentiated whole
Regarding Law and Ontology
The last discussion involved taking into account the
ramifications for Taiwanese law in considering the
different ontologies among Taiwanese indigenous groups.
As discussed above, the presenter begins with treating
all ontologies at play on equal grounding. However, in
Taiwan liberalism is the basis for law which, while
constitutionally protecting indigenous culture, does not
recognise their legal systems. If a legal establishment
were to, however, graft these ontologies onto
conventional legal structures, this could allow for an
expanded vocabulary to deal with, for example, animal
rights. This could then potentially give non-human
animals (and nature itself), a chance to have a say in
legal matters. For example, in release of life
ceremonies, freedom of religion would not be able to
supersede the inherent rights of the animals in question.
As Nicolaisen points out, these notions are part of the
worldwide “Rights of Nature movements,” which attempts to
allocate non-human entities (incl. mountains, rivers or
even all of nature) constitutional rights.
Conclusion
This report sought to share notes on Jeffrey
Nicolaisen’s talk discussing different stances towards
equality as found in Taiwan today. While not able to share
all details of a complex and multifaceted project, this
work is nevertheless hoped to invite more interest into
Nicolaisen’s research.
Disclaimer
All content above reflects the author’s reflections and
judgements, and should not be
taken for an authoritative account of Jeffrey
Nicolaisen’s scholarly work.