Archive for February, 2009
Effectiveness and Striking at the Root
Feb 27th
First, a disclaimer: I think it’s important to remember that effectiveness is only one part of what makes a form of activism viable. We could, for example, analyze whether or not it’s “effective” to bomb the homes of vivisectionists to create change. If we did, I would argue it’s probably not effective; others may argue that it is. However, there’s a bigger reason aside from “effectiveness” why I’d never bomb the home of a vivisectionist: It is an act of violence, and I’m against violence. So yes, I could say that “it’s not effective to use bombs,” but I give caution about focusing on effectiveness in that case, because I think there’s a bigger issue to consider.
Defining “effectiveness”
Arguments based on “effectiveness” arise frequently in discussions about activism and social change efforts. Countless decisions are based on what we judge to be the most effective or efficient plan of action. Many people shun their own intuition or ethical ideals because another path is assured to be more effective. Because this term is central to so many discussions about activism, I think it’s important to reflect on what it really means to us.
At this point, I see “effectiveness” as a measure of how far, how quickly, and how assuredly an action brings us toward our final goal. That is, if we want to accomplish something, I think our “effectiveness” means how quickly, directly, and assuredly we accomplish it. This can be difficult to estimate, to be sure, but this is what makes the most sense to me right now.
I’ve written that my “final goal” is a vegan world. I want to clarify that a vegan world, to me, is not just “the practical application of animal rights” or a something used “to reduce suffering” but instead the actual goal in itself. My goal is for the vegan ideal of non-exploitation—the philosophy and practice of anti-oppression—to be adopted on the large scale.
I intend to write several posts exploring ways to maximize effectiveness by this definition, but I want to propose one guiding principle right now.
Striking at the root
I care deeply about every instance of suffering, but I refuse to see that suffering as faceless and random—as if it’s by chance that human animals routinely enslave and kill nonhuman animals. I think when we notice suffering, we can ask, “What is the cause of this suffering?” and “What allows this suffering to continue happening?” Then we are looking for the root of the problem.
I think this strategy makes sense. We identify and work directly on the problem itself instead of working on the symptoms of the problem. This is where some amount of my criticism for anti-cruelty activism comes from. Anti-cruelty, anti-suffering activism seems so caught up in the “what” of nonhuman suffering that the “how” and “why” are ignored. But I think the “how” and “why”—the system of oppression that breeds the suffering—are the keys to understanding how we can effectively stop it from persisting. As L.O.V.E. member Victor pointed out: Making this criticism does not mean we are pro-suffering. We just see suffering as rooted in oppression. Without the oppression, the suffering doesn’t occur. If we get at the root (oppression), then the tree (suffering) falls.
We can get more specific yet, seeking the root causes of oppressive systems and asking how oppression is sustained and reproduced. Many of us at L.O.V.E. have been convinced by David Nibert’s model for a theory of oppression in Chapter 1 of Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation. Dani at The Vegan Ideal has summarized this theory of oppression and paired it with an analysis of veganism’s role as a theory of anti-oppression.
Acknowledging deeper roots
A deeper root arises when we acknowledge that speciesism is only one form of oppression among many. It can be enlightening to see speciesism in this context, especially for vegans who have already been involved in activism as a single-issue effort. For many, there’s a “click” and everything makes a lot more sense—veganism has so much more context than before.
Acknowledging the interconnection, we can seek out and support other liberation struggles, building bridges and forming coalitions, knowing that this only strengthens our ability to see, understand, and oppose oppression of all kinds—human and nonhuman. We can learn from other anti-oppression efforts about what works and what doesn’t. We can all strive to eliminate any of our beliefs that may be tinted with ableist, ageist, classist, heterosexist, racist, sexist, or transphobic attitudes. (And again, this is a situation where my disclaimer applies: We don’t just oppose sexism to make us more “effective” as vegans—although I think it does make us more effective as vegans. Sexism is worth opposing for its own reasons, before and after “effectiveness”!)
I’ll here note that I don’t think of true liberation as “expanding the circle” but abolishing the circle. I see the circle itself, the doctrine of respecting some and oppressing others, as a problem. This leads me to the deepest root I know to discuss: respect for all life and existence.
I see respect as the reason for my vegan stance and my anti-oppression stance. For example, Why am I opposed to exploitation? Because exploitation disrespects the individual, and I want to respect all life. So we can acknowledge this root by working to respect everyone of all species, races, genders, and classes—all struggles. And we can practice respectful activism and nonviolence, so as to respect the audience of our outreach (even those who mock us and work against us!).
Real, long-term change
“Striking at the root” is important to me because I think it’s the best (only?) way to achieve real, long-term change. I think it’s great to save any number of individuals from immediate threats of violence and exploitation, but what I really want is to solve the problems that create and sustain violence and exploitation in the world. What I really want is a world without violence and exploitation—a vegan world. So I judge my activism by how much closer it brings us to that world.
What veganism means to me
Feb 22nd
For as long as I can remember, I’ve found feeling to be very scary. In some ways, it’s easier to close myself off so I can never get hurt, but it’s a cold, lonely path of living in the shadows. So when I watch a video of a pig being killed so we can eat her flesh, it’s hard not to look away. If I allow myself, I feel pain as I watch her struggle as her throat is slit, her blood and life pouring out onto the floor, one beautiful life among thousands taken at that spot. And if I look more deeply, I feel so much sorrow thinking about her life, brought into existence by humans solely to satisfy us, living a life of total servitude for us, her life deemed by us to be less important than our desire for the taste of her flesh.
When I was young, my family stopped eating grapes after learning that workers were being sprayed with pesticides by the owners while they were out in the fields. I remember the tension in my mind every time I saw grapes at the market between wanting to eat grapes (I really liked eating grapes!) and thinking about the hidden (to me) cost to the workers being sprayed in the fields. When the cost is to another being, it’s easy to pretend it’s not that important.
Veganism is the thundering voice of conscience that doesn’t allow me to look away, that overrides the whimpering protests of my personal discomfort, that shows me my responsibility in each situation, and asks me to choose peace over violence, love over selfishness. It’s the empathy that changes my perspective from “I want grapes, but they spray the workers” to “I don’t want grapes because they spray the workers” to “How could I want grapes? They spray the workers!” And it’s the openness that allows me to once again experience the warmth and beauty of life.
The undeniability of intersectionality
Feb 9th
After many vegan years of decrying only the suffering of animals and languishing in my single-issue bubble, I was lucky enough to have picked up a copy of “The Dreaded Comparison” by Marjorie Spiegel and began the gears turning about the intersectionality of a variety of different struggles against oppression. It seems obvious to me, now, that the consumption of animals stems from the same source of the consumption of women’s bodies and identities; the similarities between the “othering” of people of color, queer people, and animals permits the systematic abuse and murder of these beings across the board. All struggles are one struggle, but I didn’t always think that way. It wasn’t until someone reached out to me — in my case, an author, and later my incredible LOVE co-founders — that the synapses started firing and the bridges were built.
This past weekend, at an organizer’s meeting for an upcoming east coast feminism conference, I was reminded that there are still many bridges to be built and many eyes to be opened. One of my co-organizers brusquely declared that vegetarianism was “not her thing” and that she didn’t really see the link between being a feminist (as she so proudly branded herself) and being a vegetarian. I gently tried to guide her down the road less traveled — pointing out the power and oppression in the relationships between man/woman and human/non-human; connecting reproductive justice for human women with the abuse of dairy cows and chickens in the name of human consumption of products of their reproductive systems; the “less-than-human” portrayal of women of color in the media and how that hierarchy serves to keep both those women and the animals in submission — but was met with a brick wall of resistance.
I was reminded also of how this single-issue focus is often pushed in the agendas of mainstream political and social justice organizations. In my time as an employee of one such animal welfare corporation, I was often encouraged not to engage people on topics other than animal welfare while doing outreach, in an effort to not seem too far outside of the mainstream. The vegan world I envision, however, does not incorporate the elimination of only one type of oppression, but instead the elimination of them ALL; I am not about to sell my people up the river to the benefit of my other people. Zoe Weil writes in a 2005 Satya article about being appalled by activists who consume a plant-based diet but do not extend their support to other movements. I’ve felt this same sort of disbelief in rooms full of all sorts of different types of activists, and have consequently made it my goal to cross-pollinate these ideas amongst different groups who may not yet have been considering the connectedness of it all.
I am not suggesting that everyone needs to devote their every waking moment to fighting every fight, but I -am- saying that it’s not too much to ask of people to be conscious of all of the struggles happening around the globe. They are inextricably linked, and they all deserve our awareness. I hardly think that this constitutes “asking too much” or being too far removed from the average person to be relateable — just as I don’t agree with a prevalent, popular opinion that asking people to adopt a vegan lifestyle is “too much.”
I wonder if any other collective members have experienced anything similar? Do you have any suggestions for effective communication styles or tactical approaches to introducing the issues of other movements to the movement which you feel most connected? Is there a “right” way to promote intersectionality and the idea that all struggles are one struggle?
Toward a Vegan World
Feb 2nd
The goal of a vegan world
I want a vegan world, because I want oppression to be really gone, for good. I don’t just want to get rid of the most “cruel” kinds of oppression in the short-term, leaving the bigger structure in tact, or leaving new forms of oppression free to arise in the future. I want to get at the root of the problem. I want to get at the root and dig out that root and do my best to make sure nothing ever grows there again.
I want a world where people see force and exploitation as wrong by principle; I want a world where, because of that, all forms of slavery are really gone—where the poor aren’t at the mercy of the rich, where women aren’t at the mercy of men, where people of color aren’t at the mercy of whites, where the “Third World” isn’t at the mercy of the “First World,” where other animals aren’t at the mercy of human animals.
In a true vegan world, ableism, ageism, classism, heterosexism, racism, sexism, speciesism, and all other forms of oppression—they’re gone. Because if people reject force and exploitation by principle, and reject violence by principle, and affirm everyone’s equality by principle, then they reject all oppression by principle. If people reject the use of other animals without consent, don’t you think we’d also reject the use of fellow human animals without consent? Don’t you think sweatshops would finally be out of the question? Don’t you think we’d collectively take poverty and inequality a lot more seriously? This is the world I want.
The problem with “stepping stones”
Many activists, downplaying direct vegan advocacy, insist that efforts for “bigger cages” and reduced-meat-diet advocacy are “stepping stones” toward a vegan world. These activists believe that better treatment now will lead to full liberation in the future. I can’t agree with this view, however, because these efforts fail to challenge human supremacy. I think human supremacy needs to be confronted in order for a vegan world—a world fundamentally opposed to human supremacy—to emerge.
Vegans reject, by principle, the privilege of choosing how other animals live and die; we work to give up our power over them. This is a critical point, I think. A vegan world is not just a world in which there is less suffering. A vegan world is not just a world in which humans refuse to hurt the other animals they control. A vegan world is a world in which humans, by principle, refuse to impose on the lives of other animals. In a vegan world, humans give-up control, power, and superiority over other animals. We stop making choices for them.
But the “stepping stones” method is based in making choices for other animals. If we decide that, for now, factory-farm eggs are unacceptable but family-farms eggs are still fine, then we’re making decisions on the behalf of other animals (the decision that “humane” exploitation is still fine). Then we’re holding onto a position where we’re superior to chickens—we still choose their fate for them. The same goes for promoting lacto-ovo vegetarianism and reduced-meat diets. While I applaud anyone’s desire to eat more ethically and I condemn no-one, a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet does not challenge human supremacy. By saying, “It’s still acceptable to eat eggs and dairy,” we’re making decisions about other animals’ lives for them. But in a vegan world, individuals choose their own lives; no-one is used without their consent.
The “stepping stones” method of activism toward a “vegan” world focuses on the surface issue of overt cruelty, leaving the underlying issue of oppression alone. Therefore, I’m convinced that this “stepping stones” activism only works toward a world without overt cruelty, not a world without oppression. But a vegan world is a world without oppression.
Why the time is ripe
The emergence of a vegan world would be a big change, clearly. In the words of the Vegan Society, “If the vegan ideal of non-exploitation were generally adopted it would be the greatest peaceful revolution ever known, abolishing vast industries and establishing new ones in the better interests of [humans] and [other animals] alike.” So I anticipate the obvious complaints: “This will never happen.” “This is an impractical goal.” “It’s too early for this.” But ah, I think the time is quite ripe.
First: I believe the time is always ripe for doing what we feel is right. Can we guarantee a victory from the outset? Probably not. But can we ever? And does that mean we abandon our drive to do what is right?
Second: I don’t believe it’s hopeless at all. Notice that we are here on this blog having this discussion right now. Notice that you and I both came from separate ways to realize that oppression is wrong by principle. And notice how many suns we have burning within us and how powerful we are when we stand together.
Walt Whitman wrote that, among the many problems, difficulties, and tragedies on earth, there’s always a core worth appreciation: “That you are here—that life exists, and identity; / That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse.” So this is our verse. We are here today—maybe not tomorrow. Let us finally say what we really want. Let us stand for something now.