Archive for December, 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”