It is easy to claim, looking from the outside in, that bullfighting is outdated and, although it would be accepted as a sport some few hundred years ago, in the 21st century it is too violent and graphic to be enjoyed. To many, in and outside of Spain (1), bullfighting and other blood sports seem gruesome and very distasteful at the least. However, the question why must be asked. If Spanish blood sports are in fact anachronistic, then why is that the case? What reasons or evidence can one provide to back up that claim?
In terms of bullfighting, the most striking and obvious reason is that what happens to the bull is inhumane. Taking animal rights into account, one must consider that the bull – a living, sentient being – is participating in the sport against its will. If this were a person being forced to participate in a sport against its will and without any say in the proceedings, there would be human rights implications in a country like Spain. This would mean that the person would not have to participate if they did not wish to. Of course, a bull cannot say if it wishes to participate in an event, regardless of what the event is. However, if we take into consideration the characteristics of bullfighting, it is clear that the event does not have the bull’s concerns as a priority (despite many bullfighting fans and participants arguing they do care greatly for the bull, as mentioned in chapter one).
Despite arguments that the toro bravo is treated with great care (see chapter one), for animal rights activists and even those who do not dedicate their time to defending animals, caring alone is not good enough when we consider the bull’s fate. Ultimately the bull will die a bloody and prolonged death, in a loud bullring with people cheering, booing, clapping and a matador piercing blades into its back. For many, the events of the bullfight outweigh the care the bull may receive beforehand. A question that one could pose is, would a human be willing to put itself in the bull’s position? If the care it receives can be used as a justification and defence of humane treatment, then why should a person be unwilling to go through the same fate?
Again – using the example of human beings – caring for a young human as it grows up to ensure it lives the best life possible is expected. It is not done with an ulterior motive that leads to a staged killing witnessed by hundreds or thousands of people. Animal rights activists believe the same should be applied to animals and in this case bulls. This is a similar argument used by Peter Singer in what he defines as equal consideration of interests. This is the concept that suffering and pain should not depend on “the species that experiences it”. Instead, identical interests should be given equal weight, regardless of species. Using this reasoning, bullfighting could not be considered ethical or just because the bull suffers in a way that would not be accepted if it were a human being.
In the 1970s Richard D Ryder coined the term speciesism, defined in the OED as, “the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals”. Peter Singer also used this term in his 1975 book, Animal Liberation, predicting that in the future human beings will look back at their treatment of non-human animals in the same way that we today view the abhorrent and unjust treatment of Africans used as slaves. Using this argument for bullfighting in Spain, somebody could argue that this will also be the case with bullfighting. In the future, Spaniards could look back, at a once traditional blood sport, with feelings of shame and guilt.
The ethical argument can often be sidestepped in the debate on the future of bullfighting, with difficult questions about what befalls the bull being avoided. There is often talk about how a decline in interest is a big reason for ending Spanish bullfighting, such as the common phrase from animal rights groups that bullfighting is “dying a slow death”. However, this does not really add a lot to the argument of whether or not Spain should ban bullfighting. The only determining factor should be the ethical one. This is because a decline in interest is not a reason for banning a sport or event. If, for example, spectator numbers were dwindling in Spanish basketball there may be a possibility that eventually people would stop playing the sport altogether on a professional level in Spain. But there would not be calls to ban basketball just because of a decrease in spectator numbers. The spokesperson for the Toro de lidia Foundation, Chapu Apaolaza, recently compared the loss of interest in going to bullrings with a similar decline of people going to the cinema. He claimed that “this does not mean that cinema is absurd or does not deserve to exist .” This statement supposes that bullfighting is facing a backlash due to its loss of spectators. In reality, one would be hard pushed to find a protester against bullfighting who cites low levels of public interest as the reason for the labelling the sport as cruel and worthy of being banned.
To try to defend Apaolaza or anybody else’s diversion away from animal rights, it could be argued that low spectator numbers mean that the public, tax-funded money going into the sport is not worth it. However, it is not a serious argument from animal rights protestors – the people who ultimately put most pressure on bullfighting. More importantly, common references to decline in spectator numbers when discussing if bullfighting should be banned may distract people from the more powerful and more pressing argument of the suffering of the bull.
Overall, as far as the ethical issue of animal suffering is concerned, a question to pose to the pro-bullfighting lobby is ‘can one justify the suffering of the bull in a bullfight?’ This is difficult to answer positively, particularly as remarks about culture, heritage, and art hold less importance to younger generations with regards to bullfighting.
Past restrictions and reasons for a decline in the sport
Some parts of Spain have seen bans and restrictions on traditional celebrations in the name of animal rights. Have these measures achieved the goal of defending the animal? Was the main intention really the wellbeing of the animal or were there ulterior motives which are well covered up by an animal rights mask? Most importantly, can these measures be considered a cause of the decline in the sport and what are other possible factors of the decline?
The paragraphs above are a means of justifying the argument of bullfighting being an anachronistic spectacle. It would be easy for this dissertation to turn into a piece of writing on animal rights alone. However, that is not the objective. I feel it is necessary to highlight animal rights in the case of arguing against blood sports in Spain as that is the main argument against bullfighting. The reason for this is that the question of whether the sport is outdated ties in with advances in animal rights. The rights of animals have been given more consideration in many parts of the world where before there were none. Examples of this can also be found in Spain. As well as the banning of bullfighting in certain regions, many local festivals have also seen restrictions imposed on their celebrations involving animals, such as the Toro de la vega, in Tordesillas ; beginning during the Franco dictatorship and continuing today, many festivals have witnessed stricter rules such as a swifter killing of the animal or no killing at all.
In 2016, the territorial delegation of Castilla y Leon (the region in which Toro de la Vega is celebrated, in the town of Tordesillas) “denied permission to Tordesillas Council to carry out the festivity” . In reality, what was really banned was the killing of the bull, the rest of the festival was still allowed to go ahead. The rule applies for all celebrations of the same type in Castilla y Leon. According to El Mundo, the festival first took place in 1534.
Despite not being nearly good enough for many animal rights activists, a further issue may be that protecting the animal is not the real reason for these new rules. Nevertheless, examples of spectacles being banned because of their cruel nature and violence towards animals could indicate a similar fate for bullfighting one day. Although bullfighting still has not come under the same scrutiny on a political level nationwide, most Spanish people would seem to support a ban of festivals such as Toro de la vega, according to the Ipsos MORI poll in which 75% oppose the fiesta. Putting together the fact that there has been little backlash at the restrictions imposed on the Toro de la vega and that more than half of people surveyed also opposed bullfighting, the restrictions of these traditions and current feeling in Spain towards them could suggest a similar destiny for bullfighting.
A natural decline?
Spain started to become a popular tourist destination in the 1960s and more and more people have visited the country from all corners of the world in the following decades. Despite enjoying many of the typical Spanish attractions, as well as bullfighting and famous events such as the Pamplona bull run, many foreigners did not take so kindly to the country’s blood sports. Tourists coming from countries such as the UK were probably not accustomed to such events being so culturally accepted (in the case of the United Kingdom, fox hunting was legal but not as popular among the masses as bullfighting had been in Spain).
As mentioned previously, bullfighting is a strong Spanish tradition. However, it may appear that tradition does not hold as much importance to many Spaniards in the 21st Century, particularly the younger generation. (3) claims that bullfighting has been on the decline ever since the death of Francisco Franco. When Spain transitioned from a fascist dictatorship to a democracy, Spaniards suddenly had more freedom to express themselves and go against cultural norm. A big reason for this was the influence from outside the country, art and music scenes from the UK and the US, for example. Spanish people were suddenly allowed to voice their opinion politically and one of these areas was animal rights. After thirty-six years of dictatorship in which Spanish nationalism was almost a rule (4), a combination of foreign influences and political diversity meant that things would inevitably change in Spain. As is clear, bullfighting is undoubtedly one of those typically Spanish activities. It is possible that with the transformation of the country away from stark tradition, that bullfighting’s popularity was destined to decline.
Perhaps, once Spaniards were not only free to reject, but also actively oppose, traditionally-Spanish pastimes and events without repercussions, an apathy kicked in. One that directly affected the popularity of the traditionally Spanish bullfight. This observation of how the transition to democracy has affected bullfighting is important because, if true, it could suggest that the decline of bullfighting is natural and that while animal activism may speed up the decline, the sport is dying a natural death.
Either way, if a decline if the sport’s popularity is linked to the end of the dictatorship in 1975 or not, it is clear that this is when bullfighting began to be academically analysed. After the dictatorship, “there was an almost immediate return to the historical discussion about nationality and national symbols. Scholars once again began to take seriously this institution that had been intimately tied to the dictatorship, yet which continued to thrive in democracy.” (Douglass, 1997). Furthermore, it is after Franco’s death – as Douglass also notes “after nearly two years of silence on the subject” – that academic literature on bullfighting started to appear. To critically analyse the impact on bullfighting caused by a change from fascist dictatorship to democracy, one must contemplate whether this birth of Bullfighting literature, analysis, and debate would have existed during the Franco years. And whether an open field in which to discuss and critique the sport has had an impact on bullfighting today.
Animal Rights Groups
It would be impossible to consider the decline of bullfighting and the strong opposition it faces without discussing the impact that animal rights groups have had on the sport.
There is no doubt that animal rights groups have contributed to a decline in bullfighting. Through spreading messages and utilising social media – a lot more so than the pro-bullfighting lobby – they have been able to propagate their belief that bullfighting is a cruel, barbarous sport that should not exist in modern Spain. When discussing animal rights groups in Spain, however, I will not be writing solely about what they have done to dissuade people from bullfighting. Rather, I will be analysing the impact they have had on the sport’s decline and how they gather support and change the sport in Spain.
In September 2016, crowds of protestors gathered in Madrid’s Puerta del Sol to march for animal rights, and the abolition of bullfighting. Dubbed Misión Aboloción, the protest was organised by animal-rights political party PACMA (Partido animalista contra el maltrato animal) and with the aim of “putting an end to all taurine festivals” and “the total abolition of bullfighting”.
Mass protests undoubtedly have an impact on bullfighting. Most importantly, they show a united and large group of people, of various political beliefs – or none at all –, gathering together in the name of banning blood sports. At the least, actions like these cause minor disruption and grab headlines, in turn raising awareness. But as has been the case, it is likely to generate more support for animalist groups and, consequently, put more pressure on bullfighting and local governments that support the sport, for example. An increase in the number of supporters and activists is of enormous importance to groups such as PACMA because it means that their message spreads more and more. This in turn means more people join the fight, once again spreading the message. It is like a cycle and the animal rights movement – not just in Spain – is moving like a whirlwind, picking up more people in its tracks. This is not good news for the sport of bullfighting.
As bullfighting tends to be more popular among older generations in Spain, younger Spaniards are more likely to become animal activists. A direct effect this has had on the bullfight debate is a superior social media presence of anti-bullfighting groups and activists. PACMA has an international Twitter following of around 190,000. It uses the site as a platform to discuss animal rights in Spain, for example it posts videos of animal cruelty, talks about advances in animal rights, and promotes upcoming protests that are taking place, such as Misión Aboloción.
PACMA uses videos of bullfighting, for example, to play on viewer’s emotions. It is not worth simply saying that killing a bull is cruel. They show their followers how the bull is killed by uploading videos and images. And the message spreads. People retweet videos, talk about them at home or at work, and even write newspaper articles about them. For example, a video the party posted in which men (who are not matadors) murder a calf in a bullring – known as a becerrada ¬¬¬– in the province of Toledo. The video generated thousands of retweets and comments and made the news. An article in El Plural carried the subheading Nunca había visto tanta crueldad en un festejo taurino (“I had never seen so much cruelty in a taurine festival”). The article also made reference to the fact that the video was posted on social media, commenting that there had been “a wave of criticisms” in response.
This demonstrates the power of social media and is an important example of how animal rights groups around the world are currently using their resources to put an end to bullfighting in Spain. People see what they have to say, take part in events they stage, and join the fight against bullfighting, in large part thanks to their growing movement and the way in which they have shown what they see as horrors of bullfighting.
2018-4-9-1523286851