Archive for year 2009
in defense of veganism
Dec 25th
A formerly vegan friend recently revealed to me that she has begun incorporating “local” and “sustainable” dairy products into her diet in an effort to eat more responsibly, at least in terms of her impact on the earth. This person is now consciously seeking only foods — with the exception of those stolen or recovered from a dumpster — that have originated within a small geographical area. Influenced heavily by Lierre Keith’s recent book, The Vegetarian Myth, this friend argues that veganism as a mainstream movement and, specifically, a way of eating, has turned into one of over-processed, over-packaged “replacement” foods that may actually harm the planet (in the language of topsoil erosion, water and fossil fuel resource depletion, and non-organic agriculture) more than is done by eating locally-raised animal flesh and excretions.
I definitely do not disagree with her dissatisfaction with the current state of vegan affairs. Veganism, to me, sometimes feels like so many grains of sand slipping through my fingers as classism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, and other forms of privilege run rampant, unchecked, through activist efforts. I, too, worry about the use of genetically-modified soybeans in faux-meats, reliance on foods transported thousands of miles, and the extinction of orangutans because Earth Balance is harvesting non-renewable palm oil from their habitats. The modern-day vegan movement, hardly reflective of the Vegan Society’s original definition as a stand against exploitation, has allowed the Philip-Morris company (the animal testing, tobacco-growing giant behind the BOCA brand) to produce vegetarian foods that vegans rave about and permits groups ostensibly working toward animal welfare to celebrate and partner with people who otherwise commit racist, sexist, and other oppressive acts when not speaking “on behalf” of animals.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should state that I haven’t read Keith’s book, and while I would like to at some point, it hasn’t yet made its way onto my reading list. In the introduction available on her site, she states that her intention is to ask readers to look beyond just the animals on their plates and consider what else might have been sacrificed along the way to get that food to your mouth: animals killed in the agricultural process, river beds gone dry, topsoil “turned to ghosts.” It’s an interesting and important question to ask, and not one to be dismissed out of hand.
But I’m still not convinced that abandoning veganism is the way to go.
This friend of mine has declared that her desire to eat only locally is so strong that she plans to move to California and live and work on a farm, from which she will procure all of her food. While this is a very romantic and admirable notion, the fact remains that dropping everything and moving to places where the sun shines year round and myriad crops can grow is not desirable or possible for everyone. As long as we live on a planet with seven billion people, some of them will be living in areas where food is less accessible than others; unless several billion of those people plan to kill themselves for the greater good, some measure of transportation is going to be required to feed all of us. Declaring that everyone should (there’s that pesky “should” word again!) only eat food grown in their backyards feels just as privileged as the “replacement food veganism” that some locavores are purporting to challenge with their new dietary choices. Issues of privilege aside, this New York Times article from 2007 also questions some of the assumptions that local food is always “greener” than other types of food.
(On an aside, I think some mention must be made of the implicit privilege involved in dumpster diving. Royce at the Vegans of Color blog highlights some serious problems that he faced as a dumpster-diving person of color; plus, issues of accessibility, availability, and reliability also plague anyone who tries to make dumpster diving a main source of sustenance.)
Not to mention that “humane” or “sustainable” animal agriculture doesn’t happen in a vacuum. While the animals shown to visitors to a local farm may be treated “well” (though can you really be doing right by an animal by stealing her milk and forcing her to live as a tool of production?), what about their offspring who were created to keep milk flowing and then taken away from the mothers shortly after birth? What happens to the animals on this farm once their production levels decrease and they no longer become profitable for the farmers? What about the basic tenement of not using another being without her consent on which veganism was founded?
If we’re working toward a vegan world, we of course want there to be a world left over when we get there, which is why issues of sustainability and environmental responsibility are crucial to our work. But, in my opinion, a world built on oppression is not an acceptable outcome. I do think it is possible to make better food choices and STILL be vegan; for example, we can assess the foods we would like to purchase and see if an organic food wouldn’t be better than a conventional food, or if a fairly-traded food would be better than one without fair-trade certification, or if maybe a food doesn’t even belong in our cupboards because of the issues of transportation or labor or sustainability involved. Of course, this extensive line of thinking and questioning isn’t always possible for every person, every time, but neither we nor the world are perfect. I believe that continuing to advocate for veganism while continually improving our food choices (the personal is political!) is a better solution than eating eggs. (And just as we can critique local-only diets as being harmful and privileged, I think it is important to keep harmful, privileged rhetoric out of the vegan dialog as well.)
We recently updated the “Vegan on a Budget” portion of the LOVE website, which offers some really great meal ideas for vegans who may be looking to eat more cheaply, locally, or sustainably. I am proud of the offerings on this page; many of the recipes beautifully illustrate that veganism isn’t always about trying to replicate animal flesh or importing ingredients from around the globe. We welcome your comments, suggestions, and recipes; please use the general inquiries contact form or leave comments below!
An introduction to veganism
Dec 21st
The following presentation is an introduction to anti-oppression veganism. The first half covers animal rights, animal welfare, and how the two relate to anti-speciesism and vegetarianism. The second half covers the basics of anti-oppression veganism.
The video was filmed in the spring of 2009. The presentation has since evolved in a number of ways, including the removal of sighted metaphors, more precise use of the words ‘vegan’ and ‘veganism,’ acknowledgment of the term ‘vegan ideal of non-exploitation,’ and inclusion of Todos Somos Animales in the animal rights section.
The transcripts are mostly faithful to the video, with some extraneous words removed and a few obvious mistakes corrected.
Toward vegan language
Dec 5th
There is some debate in vegan circles over how “practical” it is to consider issues of language. I believe that thinking about language issues is very useful because it allows us to understand speciesism and veganism more holistically, helping us to more fully understand the problems we face and the world we want to create. With the title “Toward vegan language,” I don’t mean to suggest “increased requirements” for vegans. (I tend not to understand veganism as a set of requirements in the first place.) What I’m suggesting is that we can put our language to use to help us achieve the goal of liberation for everyone. We can align our language with the vegan ideal in the same way that we align our diets with the vegan ideal.
Language = categorization = meaning
My understanding is that language affects—sometimes bluntly, sometimes more subtly—how we see the world. With language, we categorize our experiences: “small” things, “fun” things, “bad” things, “wise” things, and so on. These categories have consequences. Every day we make decisions based on what fits into our “good” category, our “food” category, our “people” category.
For example, I think a lot depends on whether or not the word (category) “ethical” implies an equal distribution of power. I think a lot depends on whether the word (category) “egalitarian” means equality for all species or just for humans. I think a lot depends on whether a chicken is a “someone” or a “something.”
While writing this post, I found myself using individual words to point out the impact of other individual words. I wrote: “Whether we say ‘our’ or ‘your’ determines whether we’re with or against the people we speak to.” So if this discussion seems a bit messy, I hope you receive that as merely evidence: Language and meaning are helplessly intertwined. If you change the way a thing is said, you change what is said.
(If you’re interested in personally researching the interplay between language and thought, some starting points are linguistic relativity, linguistic determinism, and in a basic way, Saussure’s “Course in General Linguistics.”)
Language & ideology
As foregrounded in the above section, I think our language can help spread speciesism or help stop speciesism. Our pronouns communicate a lot about other animals. Do we say “it” and “that thing”? Or do we say “she” and “that individual”? Phrases like “They’re just animals” allow people to hurt other animals without feeling conflict.
Transphobia and sexism can be, like speciesism, spread through our pronoun usage. By habitually using “he”—“A boss does his work”—we suggest that only men ever do anything important. By habitually using “he or she” or “she or he,” we suggest that there are only two valid, acceptable genders.
Ableism, fat-phobia, and heterosexism are, like speciesism, often spread through insults. When we call someone “stupid,” “fat,” or “gay” as an insult, we suggest that those characteristics are bad or unacceptable, or that those characteristics somehow make a person less worthy of respect. Veganism, for me, is about extending respect to all.
Language & hierarchy
If we’re not careful, our language can create hierarchy. This is especially true when writing about ethics. I’ve written before about my experience with “should” thinking. “Should” thinking is based on obedience. If we say, “You should go vegan”—especially if we say it with conviction—we establish a relationship where we are attempting to dominate the other person. We demand that the person obey our command: “You must support this cause! It’s a moral imperative!” This is an attitude of coercion.
As an artist, I’ve been guided by the quote, “There is no must in art because art is free” (W. Kandinsky). This logic seems sound to me: If you “must” do something, then you don’t have a choice, so you aren’t free. I think we can apply this quote to our vegan practice: “There is no must in veganism because veganism is free.”
Language & respect
Instead of creating hierarchy, our language can facilitate respectful conversation. As Victor has noted, the use of inclusive pronouns (“we,” “our”) can be a gesture of respect. This is an active step toward extending respect toward all. We can, with our language, establish relationships with others that are more equal. Sometimes, thinking that we’re important activists with an important cause, we might give off a tone of elitism or, as mentioned above, dominance. Being conscious about our language, however, helps us to stay open to everyone.
I think being attentive to our use of language is rewarding many times over. Aside from presenting pictures and video, language is the medium through which we express our reasons for being vegan. I think trying to change our world without changing our language is, at best, working against the grain. At worst, it might be dooming ourselves to failure.
Further reading:
- The Vegan Ideal, “Think Harder Before You Speak”
- L.O.V.E., “Holistic veganism”
Giving meaning to veganism
Nov 7th
Vegetarians often have an ambivalent relationship with the animal welfare corporation PETA. In the past, I had reservations about that corporation (e.g., the “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign), yet continued to distribute their literature. And when I did, I had to ignore that unsettling feeling of unwholesomeness, justifying my actions to myself in the name of “practical”ness: “but their stickers/brochures/DVDs are free and people seem to enjoy receiving them (especially the stickers!).” I was unwilling to give up something I wanted — having free materials to distribute — which I would have had to do if I had admitted to myself how much people are hurt by PETA’s campaigns.
This changed when I witnessed the hurtfulness of PETA’s racist “Animal Liberation” campaign firsthand. Directly seeing PETA’s cynical appropriation of a group’s experience of oppression and the tangible harm it did to our community dismantled the wall of self-deception I had fabricated in my mind to separate the “bad” things the corporation does from the purported “good.”
I could no longer ignore reality so I could keep getting what I wanted.
I was no longer willing to be associated with PETA and decided to stop distributing their materials. And when I did, I was freed from the justifications that had kept me from fully acknowledging, even to myself, the harm done to human animals by PETA. And I began to realize that, by distributing their literature, I was not only unwittingly fundraising for, but also tacitly endorsing a corporation that actively seeks out oppressive campaigns.
Fast forward a few years, and I was in a similar position with another animal welfare corporation that was actively unwilling to examine its own racist and sexist attitudes. I continued to distribute their literature, again in the name of expediency (“What else would I hand out if I stopped using these? Everybody says they’re the most effective pamphlets.”)
But finally I started thinking that I wouldn’t support or even be associated with a racist or sexist organization in any other part of my life, so why was I doing that here? Put in those terms, the decision to stop distributing the literature was easy and I was freed from the strain of trying to reconcile a fear of the unknown (“what would I do if I didn’t use this corporation’s lit?”) with not wanting to being complicit with the racism and sexism of the known.
Thinking back, I am embarrassed that it was so difficult for me to stop supporting these corporations, that something as frivolous as brightly colored stickers or the fear of the unknown was more important to me than the oppression of others. But then again, this is the trap of an oppressive system in action. Oppression is always something that can be ignored so long as it is somebody else who is being oppressed: that’s the very nature of privilege.
And so, having experienced the difficulty of disentangling myself from a dysfunctional relationship with animal welfare corporations perpetuating oppressive norms, I was encouraged to read the strong online response to PETA’s hurtful fat shaming campaign. Vegans publicly declared an intention to stop donating to PETA and mobilized to show their opposition.
These responses to a corporation unwilling to examine its role in perpetuating oppression are expressions of veganism. Veganism is revealed through our actions. When we refuse to give money to these corporations; refuse to link to their websites; renounce the perceived benefits of collaborating with them; publicly express our opposition to oppressive corporations and campaigns; and refuse to promote or otherwise support any of their campaigns and investigations until they take genuine action towards eradicating their institutionalized -isms, we give meaning and life to veganism.
On not mistaking social service for social change
Oct 25th
Ida’s recent post at The Vegan Ideal, “The Absurdity of ‘Triage’ and the Need for Social Change” recalled for me Paul Kivel’s excellent essay “Social service or social change?” in The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex. A version of the essay is available online. In this excerpt (this portion is not in the online version), Kivel describes the difference between social service and social change, and the limitations of social service in the context of his work to end domestic violence:
Social service work addresses the needs of individuals reeling from the personal and devastating impact of institutional systems of exploitation and violence. Social change work challenges the root causes of the exploitation and violence. In my travels throughout the United States, I talk with many service providers, more and more of whom are saying to me, “We could continue doing what we are doing for another hundred years and the levels of violence would not change.” I meet more and more people who are running programs for batterers who say, “We are only dealing with a minute number of the men who are violent and are having little impact on the systems which perpetuate male violence.”
In a similar way, from an anti-oppression perspective, animal welfare, which has exploitation as a precondition, is a form of social service and veganism, which recognizes and challenges the structure of oppression, offers the possibility of social change. Ida writes:
[I]f we don’t address the exploitation that is underlying the structure of human supremacy and is justified by speciesism, then there will always be nonhuman animals who are casualties of that exploitation.
…
Prevention means radically transforming our perspective on the exploitation of other animals. Instead of taking the exploitation of other animals for granted and working to do “triage” on the so-called “worst” cases – while leaving others to linger in their exploitation – we view the exploitation of any animals as obsolete. No longer is exploitation seen as a given, but as something that needs to be radically replaced with nonexploitation.
This is not to say that social service work is not valuable: far from it! It is of course important to attend to the immediate needs of individuals.* This is simply being honest: social service, by itself, does not lead to social change.** In fact, Kivel’s essay explains why “many social service agencies may be intentionally or inadvertently working to maintain the status quo,” and this is where social service can hinder social change.
If our goal is liberation for all, I think it’s important to acknowledge the limitations of social service so we don’t mistakenly believe that our work in animal welfare (social service) will somehow lead to animal liberation (social change). And I think it’s important to not confuse social service for social change, so that if our hearts ask us to work for social change, we are able to fulfill that request.
* Though, note: many animal welfare campaigns don’t serve the needs of actual individuals.
** Sanctuaries for non-human animals, though often problematic in practice, are a form of social service that in theory attend to the needs of individuals. But since sanctuaries address the effects rather than the causes of exploitation, they are assured a constant stream of individuals in need of their services. The service violence provider who said, “We could continue doing what we are doing for another hundred years and the levels of violence would not change,” could equally have been speaking about sanctuaries and speciesist oppression.
Holistic veganism
Oct 20th
As a vegan, I’m interested in more than patterns of consumption. I’m interested in dissolving speciesist attitudes, spreading an anti-oppression worldview, & ensuring respect for all. I oppose human oppression as much as nonhuman oppression. I value honesty, respect, & community. I value discussions about respectful communication, discussions about the confinement of any species, & discussions about racism in the vegan community. I want to help ensure that the vegan movement is not transphobic or sexist. I want a veganism that works for everyone—not just “the animals” & not just the middle & upper class. You might call this approach “holistic veganism”: to acknowledge all issues connected to veganism & speciesism.
Holistic veganism is a target of continual criticism from so-called “practical vegans.” Their argument is that language usage is unimportant—that worldviews are unimportant—that even human liberation movements are unimportant (!). Instead, they claim, only suffering & happiness matter. And they claim that, because “there is so much animal suffering,” we should ignore all that other stuff. This was, for a time, my understanding, too, but I’ve come to question a lot about this approach. Now I pose the question, Is “practical veganism” really practical?
My current belief is that, if our goal is liberation for everyone, holistic veganism is actually more ‘practical’ for at least two reasons. First, holistic veganism takes into account an understanding of the nature & structure of the oppression we wish to end—how it came to exist & how it is perpetuated today. Second, holistic veganism takes into account ideas & attitudes perceived to be intrinsically connected to veganism & the world we want to create.
The structure of oppression
The origin of oppression
When we understand the origin of oppression, I think we understand how to stop oppression at it’s earliest root. This is a reason to focus on exploitation. Nibert’s theory of oppression explains that exploitation is where nonhuman oppression begins. (We wouldn’t have the confinement, killing, or physical violence of animal agriculture if we didn’t first choose to exploit other animals for the products of the bodies. It all starts with exploiting them for their bodies.) Because of this, veganism is essentially a movement to end exploitation, & we talk about “the vegan ideal of nonexploitation. ”
On the other hand, “practical veganism” dismisses this understanding of cause & effect as “just a bunch of theories,” & they dismiss “exploitation” as an “abstract concept.” Because of this, “practical vegans” push aside non-exploitation ideals in order to make room for new, reduced-suffering versions of exploitation, which keep the cycle of oppression going in new forms.
The perpetuation of oppression
When we understand how oppression is perpetuated, I think we understand how to take away the support system & weaken the structure of oppression. This is motivation to consider ideas, attitudes, & language. Nibert’s theory of oppression explains that speciesist ideas justify nonhuman oppression, making it appear normal & inevitable. (“It’s O.K. to kill them; they’re just animals.”) So, as a vegan, I work on my own speciesism & I try to stop the spread of speciesism through language. I believe that, without speciesist atittudes as a justification, speciesist behavior couldn’t continue.
But “practical veganism” dismisses these concerns. “Practical veganism” asserts that attitudes don’t have to change—only patterns of consumption have to change. I think this understanding ignores that our attitudes determine our consumption & our behavior.
Ideas & attitudes connected to veganism
I recognize speciesism as one oppression among many, so I tend to discuss both speciesism specifically & oppression more broadly. I recognize the centrality of respect to anti-oppression work—so I promote respectful activism & respectful communication. I recognize veganism as a dedication to questioning everything—social norms, advocacy norms, & my own beliefs—so I invite debate, I continually question conventions, & I strive to learn from others’ criticisms. I recognize veganism as a movement against hierarchy, so I help form groups that avoid hierarchical structures (L.O.V.E. is a collective).
But again, “practical veganism” ignores these concerns, accepting & reinforcing any social norm consistent with “effectiveness”; working within hierarchical structures that distribute power unequally; & dismissing, even silencing, criticism within their groups.
In defense of holistic veganism
If our goal is liberation for all beings, I think a holistic understanding of veganism is helpful. It helps us to recognize the origins of that oppression, so we can stop it at the root. It helps us to recognize how that oppression is sustained, so we can stop feeding it. And it helps us to ensure that our groups and our outreach efforts are built on principles consistent with a vegan world.
Some of the common criticisms of holistic veganism arise from a genuine, core difference in values between vegans. Much of the criticism, however, seems to be simply misinformed. There are people who seem to honestly believe that, if we aren’t “practical vegans,” we must be arrogant, obsessive, uninformed vegans. My intention with this post has been to clarify some of the reasons—almost completely overlooked—why a holistic understanding of veganism may in fact be helpful, logical, effective.
The honey issue & focusing on the most marginalized groups
Oct 12th
The first result when one searches the words “vegan” & “honey” on the Google search engine is the website “Why Honey is Not Vegan.” This website, created in 1999, explains clearly & directly the reasons why veganism—in its original sense, as non-exploitation—stands against the exploitation of bees. The website pairs this explanation with an in-depth exploration of how honey is produced, allowing the reader to really understand bees & feel for their situation.
The website’s creator, Noah Lewis, is currently raising money to fund a complete overhaul & revision of the site. Proposed additions to the site include information on colony collapse disorder, a letter to raw vegans who eat honey, a review of Bee Movie, & an examination of honey & honey bees as depicted in children’s literature. The updated website would dispel myths & common misunderstandings about honey & antioxidants, the ethics of eating fruit that’s been pollinated by bees, & organic/natural beekeeping.
Beyond promoting Noah’s specific effort, I want to use this post to discuss one of the values I see embodied in this effort. That is, while it explains veganism to the public, it insists on solidarity with some of the most marginalized nonhuman animals—insects. Moreover, by arguing for the liberation of that most marginalized group, I think it effectively argues for the liberation of all groups.
Focusing on the most marginalized groups
Some vegans question an outreach effort that specifically addresses “the honey issue,” especially since other advocates intentionally avoid the subject. In a conversation with Ida at The Vegan Ideal, Noah explains the motivation behind a website exclusively about the exploitation of bees:
I see my page on bees as akin to when other social justice movements focus on the most marginalized groups. If we don’t speak up for bees now, when are we going to, exactly? In other social justice movements, the more privileged groups are always blaming the more marginalized groups, saying that they’re holding back the movement. The LGBT movement exemplifies this, where wealthy white suburban gays and lesbians are embarrassed by flamboyant pride parades and don’t understand what the T has to do with the LGB.
Along with ensuring the inclusion of bees into our idea of veganism, I think focusing on bees can actually help to effectively communicate the core ideas of veganism. When I discuss veganism with others, it’s important to me that I communicate the core, the real root, of what I’m doing as a vegan & what I feel as a vegan. For me, this means making it clear that I’m opposed to all animal exploitation. The method I’ve used for communicating this has been talking about “exploitation itself.” I try to strip away all the particulars & talk about exploitation, force, & oppression in very general terms. I’ve come to understand, however, that focusing on the most marginalized groups—human or nonhuman—tends to do this same kind of thing. I think that to seek liberation for the most marginalized groups is not only to seek liberation for those specific groups. To seek liberation for the most marginalized groups seems, instead, to demonstrate an opposition to all oppression—an opposition to “every possibility of oppression and exploitation.”
While L.O.V.E.’s approach has often been to question multiple speciesist practices in the same pamphlet—or to question multiple forms of oppression in the same blog post—I think another useful approach is to focus on a single instance of oppression & use that discussion as a vehicle to spread underlying non-exploitation ideals. This is especially relevant to everyday conversations about veganism. Often, we have an opportunity to speak to people about specific forms of exploitation that are mentioned in conversation. We can use these conversations to spread ideas of non-exploitation in general. This is what Victor & Miranda have done with a recent circus pamphlet, suggesting underlying themes of choice & consent, & I think this is what “Why Honey is Not Vegan” does.
For more:
- Noah writes about “normalizing radical and radicalizing norms.”
- “Why Honey is Not Vegan” Kickstarter page (donations accepted until Oct. 14 or until goal is reached).
it’s alright if everyone’s doing it
Oct 11th
today, my partner and i walked out of the musical ”avenue Q” at intermission, and we never looked back. as a full-fledged theater nerd, this is not something i have ever done before; typically, i cry at the theater because i am so moved by a singer’s voice or by a cast’s performance. this time, i found myself crying because the absolute steamrolling of identities by the show’s script left me feeling so uncomfortable and so downtrodden that i couldn’t think of anything else to do. (granted, i was having a terrible day, and i may have held it together on an afternoon when myriad things hadn’t already gone wrong; i doubt strongly, however, that i wouldn’t have still been offended and upset.)
i recognize that there is a possibility that the script was written with that smug, tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic style that leaves the author room to say, “but i was CLEARLY joking!” if he is called out on the ridiculousness and offensiveness of the words (see also: hipster racism). i also acknowledge that i walked out before the show was over, and perhaps there is a redeeming moment in the second act in which all of the characters renounce the words and actions that occurred before the intermission (but i doubt it). but if that’s the case, what about the folks who walked out with me at halftime? what if the damage had already been done?
in a theater in one of the wealthiest states in the country, surrounded by some of the most privileged people in the world, i listened to the laughter of the mostly-white audience at the jokes coming at the expense of people of color, gay people, and women, and i just felt like we were all taking one enormous step backwards from being able to respect or empathize with the oppressed groups taking a verbal beating by the show.
some of the lyrics encourage listeners to tell racist jokes because everyone secretly enjoys them; one character suggests that it’s ok to pass little racist judgments like “wishing the mexican busboy would learn to speak goddamn english” as long we’re not making BIG racist judgments like hiring or hate crimes (oh, wait, we’re still doing both of those, too!); the one black-identified character declares that “bigotry isn’t exclusively white!”; the scripted accent of one asian-identified female character is the butt of several jokes throughout the play.
“tongue-in-cheek” or not, this is dangerous.
and i found myself thinking also of a norton anti-virus software commercial i’d seen recently {link here; trigger warning}. a naked, dead, mutilated chicken is “pitted” in a “battle” against four male humans. at the :20 mark, the narrator says something along the lines of, “the chicken doesn’t have feelings one way or another” — and i remember being stunned by those lines, because it has been proven that, yes, chickens DO have “feelings:” they have just as much interest in living free lives — in not appearing naked, dead, and mutilated on television or on our plates without their consent — as anyone else. i could just imagine the hundreds of thousands of people who might catch this on TV and consciously or subconsciously receive this reminder that animals don’t have feelings and can be manipulated in any way we so choose.
it’s also important to keep in mind which groups are creating these lyrics and commercials. i guarantee you a chicken didn’t storyboard that norton commercial, and i doubt either of the creators of “avenue Q” ever actually was an individual of limited english proficiency working for significantly less than a living wage in the food service industry.
any time i encounter something like this, i just cringe (or cry) at what an enormous step backwards this feels like. people who might have been in the process of committing to an animal-free, vegan diet may find themselves wondering why they’re doing so, if yet another commercial reinforces the popular notion that non-human animals are not sentient beings (not to mention all of the advertisements that straight-up portray them as food). people who may have been making an effort to be more aware of the identities and the oppression of people around them may be shamed by the lyrics of “avenue Q” (and the seeming agreement of everyone in the theater) into being more careless about their behavior.
as anyone working against the dominant forces of the world can attest, i’ve been told that i’m too critical, that i’m humorless, that i take everything too seriously — but today, i think i’ve finally stopped feeling ashamed of analyzing the world in this way. i am simply reinvigorated to keep fighting, keep speaking out and standing my ground, until the world begins to operate in a way that doesn’t require so much critical analysis and so many tears.
Is it natural? Does it matter?
Sep 7th
In a sociology course I’m taking, to convince the class that social change is possible, the instructor told us, “Humans don’t actually have any instincts.” In Robert Jensen’s Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity—a book that I recommend—to convince readers that change is possible, Jensen emphasizes that aggressive, king-of-the-hill masculinity is socially constructed, not natural. Every day, vegans make arguments to non-vegans that humans are naturally herbivores because of our teeth, the way we chew, and our difficulty with digesting raw flesh. In each of these examples, someone advocating social change assumes it’s important to debunk the “naturalness” of some human behavior.
First, I’d mention that these claims are often hard to support. How do you define “natural”? Why does the category “natural” include all animal behavior except recent human behavior? Why isn’t the anti-oppression movement “natural,” too? After all, it’s happening! Maybe by a trick of terminology one could say that humans have no “instincts”—but most of us get hungry when we need food, most of us feel a desire to do the acts that lead to reproduction, and most newborn babies “know” to turn their head and suck for nourishment. Refusing to call these “instincts”—even when they’re called “instincts” for nonhuman animals—is not only confusing but also, unless I’m missing something, speciesist.
My point here is not to argue that our violence is “natural” but instead to bring the emphasis away from what’s “natural” and toward what we actually feel is right—what we feel we want to support. The reason I’m vegan is not because I think it’s the “natural” way. It’s because I think it’s the best way. It’s the way that feels best to me in my gut, and it’s the way that makes the most sense to me logically. I’m vegan because, to me, it seems fair, equal, beautiful. I’ve been making some changes in my life over the past couple years—working to be more respectful to everyone; working to feel less anger, and to deal with anger in calm, nonviolent ways; working to dissolve the sexism and racism I notice in my thoughts. It doesn’t seem relevant to me whether these change efforts are “natural.” The point is that they make life better for me and for everyone around me.
Instead of challenging the “naturalness” of violence and hierarchy, I think we can just challenge violence and hierarchy directly. We can assert that “naturalness,” however defined, doesn’t really matter to us. We can assert that we want to build a better world, one that is fair and beautiful for everyone. And if that means working to change some “natural” behavior, then I think that is o.k. We are willing to do that for each other.
Sustainable animal agriculture and ethical vegetarianism
Aug 28th
The sustainable dairy, egg and meat trend presents an interesting moment for animal advocates, as it brings to the fore the limitations of the anti-suffering, anti-cruelty rhetoric of animal welfare organizations. Read any vegetarian starter kit or eat-less-meat booklet from one of these groups and you’ll find they are treatises against factory farming (animals suffer in factory farms; factory farms hurt the environment). Many take great pains to state clearly that they’re talking specifically about factory farms, and not about other farms that breed, raise and kill non-human animals.
Sustainable animal agriculture neatly sidesteps all animal welfare concerns. This is why, for the public, it offers an attractive alternative to factory farms. When I worked for an animal welfare corporation handing out their anti-factory farming literature, people all the time would say to me, “That’s why I don’t buy animal products from factory farms! I buy local, organic, free range!” The arguments against factory farming have no relevance to sustainable animal agriculture (if anything, they support it!).
Peter Singer, around whose philosophy all the modern animal welfare corporations are based, was clear from the start that his anti-suffering philosophy only prohibits eating products from animals in factory farms. In Animal “Liberation”, Singer writes “So we must ask ourselves, not: Is it ever right to eat meat? But: Is it right to eat this meat?” (Second Edition, p 160). In a recent book, The Way We Eat, he tells readers where to buy sustainably and humanely raised animal products. Two of many examples:
- “[A]void animal products that come from factory farms. … Information about farms that do not use factory methods is available … at www.eatwellguide. org [the web site’s tagline: local, sustainable, organic], and from … www.eatwild.com [tagline: the #1 site for grass-fed food and facts].” (p. 287)
- “If you eat marine animals, choose species that come from sustainable fisheries … www.thefishlist.org” (p. 288, in the ‘Sustainable Fish’ section)
It’s an odd quirk of history that Singer’s anti-suffering ideas, which explicitly endorse consuming animal products, have been used as the ethical argument for vegetarianism. It is this tension that is exposed by sustainable animal agriculture.
As vegetarian advocates, I think sustainable animal agriculture offers us a great opportunity to examine our message and our ideas. When speaking with the public about vegetarianism, do their questions reveal problems with the message we are presenting? If so, rather than ignoring those problems, I suggest reconsidering the ideas underlying our message. In my own case, it was speaking with a skeptical public that led me to realize that my own ethical vegetarianism was grounded in the vegan ideal of non-exploitation, and not in the anti-suffering arguments promoted by animal welfare corporations. Of course, your reasons for vegetarianism may be different from mine. Regardless of what those reason are, by continually and honestly examining our personal reasons for being vegetarianism, we strengthen our understanding of our beliefs and become more articulate, confident and effective advocates.