Archive for October, 2009
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.