Archive for year 2010

Examples of community-based activism

In spring 2009 I worked at my university’s writing center in one of the student dorms, meeting with walk-in appointments and basic writing students.  One of my regular students, K, was interested in some of the same subjects as I was, and at most of our meetings we talked about those things more than K’s writing.  K was in a philosophy class, and we talked about ethics, I think, at most meetings.

K was not a practicing vegetarian or vegan, but we sometimes talked about veganism at our meetings, and we had mostly the same thoughts: Who do we “think we are,” as humans?  Why is it “murder” to kill another human and “sport” to kill a nonhuman?  Why do we think we are “compassionate” to kill “free range” chickens instead of “factory farmed” ones?  One time I suggested a documentary about speciesist oppression to K, but I don’t know if he watched it.  About 8 weeks into the semester, K stopped coming to the writing center and I didn’t meet with him anymore.

This past spring one of my friends at my university, M, said he was directing a friend of his to me so I could help him go vegetarian.  M directed his friend to me because M knew I was involved in veganism and had experience living as a vegan in our town.  I found out later that M’s friend was K, and K had decided to eat vegetarian.

I told K which stores in our town had the most options for vegan groceries, and I offered to shop with him.  I told him about the natural foods store and the restaurants in our town that have vegan options.  I told him about cooking foods like pancakes and mashed potatoes so they are vegan.  K said he was grateful and that he might be able to be “completely vegan” sooner than he originally thought.

This experience demonstrated to me the value of talking about veganism with people and “being available” as a vegan.  My role with K was mostly passive: I talked about veganism in the context of maybe “philosophical musing” or something, and then later I gave him tips about eating vegan in our town.  I didn’t have to be an “activist” really, but “simply” talking about veganism and “being there” as a vegan was helpful to him.

Another example of community-based activism is that recently I added a veganism page to my poetry blog.  Having the page on my blog is pretty passive, but it gets almost as many hits as my other pages, and I’ve received multiple comments about veganism from other poets.  In the past I was excited about combining poetry and activism to make an “activist poetry.”  Now I’ve noticed that “simply” being available as a vegan—publicly mentioning veganism as “the other thing I do”—is already helpful.   I think promoting veganism like this is very easy and very valuable.

Thank you for reading this post.

Related posts:
- The value of community-based activism
- Dropping the “activist” label
- Putting it out there

despair 101

Recently, members of the LOVE collective have been batting around the idea of adding some “Veganism 101″-type posts  to our blog, in the interest of sharing some of our experience and advice with fellow collective members and blog readers.  Everyone who has made the choice to adopt a vegetarian diet or who views the world through an anti-oppression lens has hit some stumbling blocks along the way — often in the form of fielding questions from friends and family, feeling some discomfort over making new choices, or trying to figure out the right way to express concern, criticism, or excitement about things happening in the world.  One of the reasons we created the Vegan Blog was to share these experiences with each other and learn from them; building this community, both virtual and physical, was one of my main goals, at least, in founding LOVE.

However, I’m struggling a bit with the idea of posting some set of rules or guidelines for other vegans to follow in their own lives.  My experiences are my own, and the way I handle a situation may be radically different from the way that someone else would choose to do so.  I’m certainly no expert on anything, and I don’t like the implicit authority that comes from being the author of the post.  I’ve wanted to write something in here for weeks, but I’ve been floundering, having only my own experiences to draw upon and certainly not feeling qualified to tell others how to live their lives.

Other writings on this site have talked about speaking your truth, and as I was gawking at my blank computer screen, I realized that this might be exactly what we have to offer.  Instead of worrying about having all the right answers or overstepping my bounds in directing others in how to live, it might be most useful — and most cathartic — for me to just write about experiences I have had as an anti-oppression vegan activist and solicit feedback from the rest of the collective (and other readers) about how to handle these situations.  I hope that the other LOVE blog writers will contribute similar stories; we can create our own version of “Veganism 101″ that will hopefully be more inclusive, more truthful, and more relevant.

I want to talk a little bit about my experiences with combating despair.  Sometimes, as activists and compassionate people, the weight of the world’s problems can really suck the life out of us.  With a greater understanding of the forces that keep humans and animals oppressed comes a heavy sadness that can immobilize us.  The media seems to be a never-ending parade of oil spills and abuse of dairy cows, violence and war; even worse is when around us in in the flesh is apathy, sexist jokes, animals on plates, and “allies” who don’t understand us at all.  It’s enough to make a person want to hide under the covers and never come out.

So, what’s a vegan to do?

Personally, I’m working really hard on a few different approaches to this gut-wrenching feeling.  First and foremost, I’m acknowledging that I spend a LOT of time thinking about and writing about and living anti-oppression; most of the people I meet are not going to have given these issues as much consideration as I have, and I can’t expect them to be on the same wavelength as me.  It took a lot of time and reading and talking these things through to get to the understanding I have today, and tempting though it may be to throw a fit each time someone falls short on his analysis of power and privilege, it’s not fair or productive to do so.  What’s more, the general mission behind LOVE is to build and strengthen our communities; when we focus on that goal and proliferate the ideas of anti-oppression activism beyond the relatively small group of people who currently devote themselves to these issues, there will be fewer people causing me such anguish.

Terrible things are happening in the world, to people and animals.  Every time I write a letter to someone in prison or meet an animal who is obviously traumatized by her experience on a farm or in an abusive home, I worry that I’m not going to be able to handle the next atrocity that comes down the pike.  Sadly, I sometimes feel like my horror or disgust or despair wouldn’t be understood by anyone around me; or worse, when I try to express these feelings to friends and partners, I end up debating or justifying myself instead of getting the support that I needed.

How do we maintain hope when there seem to be so few people hoping right there with us?

I’m trying to live more by example than continuously and aggressively shoving these ideas down the throats of everyone I meet.  The latter approach seems to be just exhausting for everybody involved and no doubt contributes to that weighted-down feeling that seems to run my life from time to time.  LOVE is currently working on a new video and an updated version of our vegan brochure that will hopefully facilitate the conversation about veganism and anti-oppression beyond what we’re able to do in our day-to-day lives.  In short, my goals are to not alienate people and not lose myself in the fog of sadness that sometimes rolls in with the sunrise.  The bigger this community becomes, the more allies we will have in fighting that despair, and the less alone we will feel.

If anyone has any similar experiences or wants to discuss any of these ideas further, please feel free to share in the comments.  I’d really like to hear how you find the strength to keep fighting so that I can draw upon it in some of those difficult moments.

Emptying Cages: From Animal Abolition to Prison Abolition

This is the text of a presentation given at the 2010 Institute for Critical Animal Studies Conference.

I am always shocked and saddened when I hear yet another story about an activist who has been arrested and put in prison.  We heard earlier today about the Green Scare, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the unconstitutionality of the laws that exist to put our comrades behind bars – and, yet, every time that happens, I am stunned.  I mean, these are our friends, our colleagues, our family members.  Some of them are finding themselves locked up for ten, fifteen, twenty years.  Our criminal justice system, clearly, is wreaking havoc on the hearts and minds of the people fighting for change for animals, and their families.

Maybe I’m always so shocked because as a relatively privileged person, it’s not likely that many of my closest friends and family members will end up in jail.  It’s only really through this road of animal activism that I’ve had any brushes with law enforcement.  But the prison-industrial complex has been thriving for years on striking that same fear into the hearts, minds, and families of poor people, of communities of color, and gender non-conforming individuals long before the advent of the Green Scare.

I am one of the founders of a group whose opposition to violence is so central to the work that we do that we have actually chosen to incorporate it into the very name of our collective – Living Opposed to Violence and Exploitation.  And yet, the act of calling the police on someone, the act of putting someone in jail – in a cage – is not widely viewed as the act of violence that it is.  In fact, there are some animal advocacy organizations calling for stricter penalties and harsher punishments for animal cruelty.  Of course, we all want to see the end to animal abuse and exploitation, but is putting people in jail – overwhelmingly, people who are already oppressed by the same systems of power and privilege that allow animals to be abused – really the solution?  Does incarceration actually address the broader societal issues of animal exploitation?

The United States incarcerates more of its citizens than any country in the history of the world.  One in every 100 adult Americans is in jail.  While the United States has just five percent of the world’s population, it is home to 25% of the world’s prisoners.  These numbers are startling.

I’m going to posit that the U.S. criminal justice system – the Prison-Industrial Complex – serves as a political tool to keep poor people, people of color, and gender non-conforming people under the control of those in power.  It’s a well-oiled machine of oppression that systematically denies people wealth, value, and freedom.  And it is not something I, as a vegan and animal advocate, can endorse.  It feels imperative to me to be working to empty the cages that confine and repress all animals, including humans.

Before I started researching prison abolition, in fact, before I was much of an activist, I had this idea that law enforcement and incarceration existed to keep us safe.  That notion was eroded slowly over time, as I saw abuse of police power at demonstrations, as I watched friends get locked up for having the audacity to speak out against unjust systems, and as I started seeing the parallels between animal oppression and human oppression.  But I still didn’t really know what to do otherwise.  What about the “criminals” who are imprisoned and thus not on the streets?  Isn’t that a sign that the system is working?

As it turns out, prison operates a lot differently than what is told to us through the dominant cultural narrative.  Of the 2.3 million people in prison in the United States, about 1% of those people are actually there for a “violent crime” – the rest are typically related to drug charges, fraud, or other minor offenses.  I don’t think that the solution to poverty or drug addiction is to lock people in cages, but this is exactly what we’re doing.

What’s more, the incarceration of millions of people has done very little to deter future crime.   Women are still afraid to walk down the street.  Families are still torn apart by violence.

Prisons are not about reducing harm in our communities and in fact, imprisonment actually serves to destabilize our communities.  Prisons are violent institutions that only perpetuate violence, and prisons as a public policy solution have failed to create safe communities.  They do nothing to address the cultural conditions that lead to so-called criminal behavior.

Over 500,000 of the people currently languishing in U.S. prisons are there because they simply can’t afford to post their bail.  They’ve been judged not a threat to society and have not been found guilty of anything, but are stuck in prison for the months it takes for their case to wind through the court system because they can’t afford the bail fee.

Class and wealth play a huge role in the “who” of prison.  Approximately 30% of women arrested had been receiving public assistance before their arrest.  Fewer than 40% of women had held a full-time job prior to their arrest, and 2/3 of women under supervision – either in jail, on probation, or on parole – had never held a job making more than $6.50 per hour.  Opportunities to get education or employment while in prison are severely limited, if available at all, which ensures that inmates will continue to be poor even after they are released.

More than 60% of the people in prison are people of color.  Compare that to the ethnic composition of the United States: less than 45% of the population identifies as non-white.  There’s a huge disparity here.   For Black males in their twenties, 1 in every 8 is behind bars on any given day.  Three-fourths of people in jail for drug offenses are people of color.   At this point, you have young Black and Latino men just assuming that one day, they will go to prison.  It tears apart their families, it hobbles them in terms of future opportunities, and it does very little to actually deter crime.

Women in prison also face incredible challenges.  By the end of 2006, over 112,000 women were behind bars, compared to 44,000 women imprisoned in 1990.  Women of color, like men of color, are actually overrepresented in the prison system.  Women’s individual histories of trauma and abuse also makes prison an incredibly hostile environment, and guards often take advantage of the power dynamic between guard and inmate.  Barriers to health care, especially female-related health issues, like reproduction, breast cancer, and childbirth, can make prison a deadly experience for women.

Trans- and gender non-conforming individuals face even more opposition in prison, as they are often housed with people of opposite genders, are denied medical care and treatment, and are assaulted and harassed simply for their gender identity or gender expression.  Because it’s still legal in most places to discriminate against trans-identified people, it can literally be impossible for these individuals to go to school, get a job, or otherwise support themselves.  Prison seems almost inevitable when the deck is so stacked against them.

Whenever I talk about prison abolition – or the idea that criminalization is not the solution to society’s problems – people inevitably ask, “if not prison, then what?”  I ask myself that question all the time, too.  The idea of incarceration is so ingrained in our societal narrative that we have difficulty visualizing any other way to keep the peace.  Two really important considerations have helped me to embrace the idea of abolition and encouraged me to work toward a different model:

1)    There is a lot of violence and “crime” being committed that goes unpunished, and a system that doesn’t address all violence equally is one that I cannot endorse.  For example, in 2008, a number of slaughterhouse workers in California were sentenced to jail time for the abuse of animals in their facility.  Some of these people were undocumented workers, who will be deported once their jail time is served.  However, what about the executives at the top of those corporations, whose orders directly result in the murder of billions of animals every year?  Why are they allowed to exploit those workers?  And why, instead of getting punished, are they some of the richest folks in the country?
2)    There is a lot of violence occurring within the U.S. prison system.   Sexual assault and murder run rampant through prisons and jails.  Prisoners are denied adequate health care, opportunities to make contact with their friends and families, education, and income.  Women are physically shackled to tables and beds during childbirth.  Immigrants are deported to countries in which they may know no one after serving their jail sentences here.  It’s a system that completely devalues the lives and bodies of the people struggling within its walls.

I have a really nice quote from Andy Stepanian, one of the SHAC7 activists, who served two years and seven months in prison for “conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act.”  Andy says that he doesn’t believe incarcerating either social justice activists or animal abusers is the answer to society’s woes.  “I oppose the prison industrial complex and all forms of oppression. I don’t relish seeing a single piece of kindling thrown into that fire no matter how despicable the animal-abusing wretch is.” Andy views cruelty to animals as a sickness that is exacerbated when the abuser is behind bars. “I think we need to get proactive in healing our culture’s illnesses, and in turn these abusers — whom I see as symptomatic — will be a less-frequent phenomenon.”

But how will we be safe without prisons?  Take a minute and think about what makes you feel safe — your home?  Your family?  Your friends?  While some people may say that prisons and police in your community make you feel safe, many of us most impacted by prisons and policing will not.  In fact, the Prison-Industrial Complex has stolen those very things from millions of people.  We see that prisons and rampant policing have served to destabilize our communities — removing family members from our communities, draining resources for essential social services, and pushing us to fear each other.

Of course, the notion of abolishing prisons is, admittedly, ambitious.  I think a lot of people are really exhausted by the idea of doing all this work, just as the task of bringing about a vegan world can feel so daunting to those of us working toward change for animals.  It’s easy, unfortunately, to think, “Well, this will never happen in my lifetime.”  But that line of thinking is so dangerous.  I’ve watched veganism get co-opted by organizations looking to make a dollar and declare victories – we’re pushing for alternative methods OF exploitation, like humane farms, instead of alternatives TO exploitation.  And prison reform feels that way to me as well.  I think the best way to advocate for prisoners and to make their lives better is to get them out.  A system that puts people into cages is no more ok by me than a system that ultimately kills animals for our enjoyment.  Neither of those can exist in a vegan world.

Suggested Reading

Resource List

Building a local, anti-oppression collective

This is a guest blog from Chris of the Athens Vegans collective in Athens, Greece. He writes about the importance of creating community and staying true to the vegan theory of non-exploitation. For more information, visit the Athens Vegans’ website at http://athensvegans.blogspot.com.

Dear friends in the L.O.V.E. community, hello!

I’m Chris and I’m posting on behalf of the Athens Vegans, a vegan collective in Athens, Greece. This is our first post on the L.O.V.E. blog and we are really glad to have found you, because for us it’s a great honour to be part of the L.O.V.E. anti-oppression collective, which has been a great resource of support and inspiration and we’ll try in turn to contribute in the most positive way.

Our group is just a few months old and it was formed for the purpose of promoting veganism, which is virtually unknown in this country. Our effort is based on the principle of doing essential and credible work and not just form a group for the sake of it. We perceive veganism in the same broader sense that L.O.V.E. and The Vegan Ideal do: as a theory and practice of anti-oppression, and the words vegan and veganism in this post are used with this meaning. In our mind, we think of this view of veganism as deep veganism (in an analogy with deep ecology). So we feel the huge responsibility on our shoulders to introduce and promote veganism on that basis and not as a dietary trend or consumer practice, as it is portrayed by its opponents.

Our involvement with the issue of veganism and the subsequent study of animal advocacy worldwide, made us realize that there are some serious mistakes being made that we in no way want to repeat. Also, we’ve come to consider as the greatest hindrance to veganism the immense confusion, deliberate or not, present in animal advocacy. Instead of the straightforward promotion of veganism which liberates animals from human oppression, we have four more approaches claiming to pursue the interests of animals: vegetarianism, animal welfare, animal rights, and the animal liberation front. As if the propaganda of the vested interests wasn’t enough, these approaches create confusion, distract from the goal and send a contradictory message to society. In the end, all these things reinforce the current structure and its beliefs and so any approach that functions in this way does not have a place in any struggle. For us, it is now clear that the above approaches are alien and hostile both to veganism and the issue of animals and they are involved in animal advocacy for their own benefit (NPIC) and to promote their own agenda. So we’ve decided to leapfrog these in-between stages of advocacy that have virtually marginalized veganism, towards the clear, movement building approach of L.O.V.E..

The above analysis has led us in setting three goals:

First and foremost, to bring vegans back to the theory of veganism. Veganism as a holistic theory of anti-oppression is the only appropriate theory to shape a vegan consciousness. No other theory or approach can shape a vegan consciousness, nor is it entitled to do it. When it does so, it is for the purpose of misrepresenting and undermining veganism. In other words, vegans need to realise that they can rely directly on their theory and its vision and not on the appropriated, co-opted version of veganism put forth by its opponents. And much to our bitterness, but rather predictably, we’ve faced the fiercest opposition from some local vegans who still stick to this version of veganism.

Second, to promote vegan activism, which is about introducing and raising an awareness of the interconnection of human and animal oppression, it is in accordance with the values of veganism (such as non-violence) and strives towards the creation of a vegan movement.  So, by focusing strictly on vegan activism and not participating in activism by the other approaches, we think that we are sending a clear message to the people.

Third, to make sure that our effort is constantly in the direction of eliminating the confusion. To that end, we will remain focused on targeting oppression and its ensuing ideology (speciesism, sexism, racism, etc), while being as minimalist and concise as possible (no endless, about everything discussions/posts). And since the oppression towards animals is the foundation for all forms of oppression (even the most oppressed human can intentionally or unintentionally oppress non humans), we’ll allocate a greater amount of our time and resources to it, while at the same time being in solidarity and respecting any genuine struggle to eliminate every other form of oppression.

Now, since the vast area of animal advocacy is really a vast desert of disappointment with no sign for the slightest positive outcome, the need for restoring veganism (the way L.O.V.E. and The Vegan Ideal do) is even more imperative. Indeed, now it’s more obvious than ever that we need to make the leap in that direction and this, in fact, is expressed in the identifying slogan of our collective: Let’s make the LEAP in the spreading of veganism!

By that we don’t mean a simple numerical growth of “accidental” vegans but the slow and steady process of building the local vegan movement/collective on the basis of the vegan/anti-oppression consciousness of its members. This requires the formulation of a clear ideological position, by processing the available material and delivering it in a way of our own, that is, finding our own voice. It’s a time consuming process but eventually it will attract the right kind of members to the local vegan movement we aspire to build.

This is our intention and thanks to L.O.V.E. and The Vegan Ideal (actually we discovered  L.O.V.E. through a post from that blog), our great inspirers in this endeavour, we’ve learned a lot on how to get started with this, but we’ll need and count on your help all along the way.

For now, all the best from all of us here and we thank you once again for your kind help and support!

For the Athens Vegans

Chris Georgiadis

Update on the activism video and related projects

Last summer I started working on an activism video to use in place of videos like Earthlings, which many of us have grown to dislike but might still use because there isn’t a great alternative.  (I’ll note that I’ve been using slaughterhouse footage from Igualdad Animal in recent months; most of it lacks narration, but it’s powerful footage and readily accessible for online activism.)  After I missed my ambitious goal to finish the activism video by September, I let the project go for a while—I felt burnt out, and school demanded my attention.  In January I started working regularly on the project again.

So far I’ve basically completed the first part (more than half) of the video, which addresses speciesist oppression.  I also compiled a rough ending—which discusses veganism—but I’ve recently decided to rewrite the end.  (This also means rerecording some narration.)  Besides these tasks, I have a few audio problems to fix.  I feel tempted to set another public goal to finish by some date, but after the last time, I’m not sure that’s the most effective approach for me.  In any case, I’m excited about this video.  Every time I work on it I feel a somber but powerful (and “ultimately” encouraging) feeling that this is important work.  I feel like this video is going to do something important.

Besides giving an update on the video, I want to detail some other exciting developments.  LOVE member M is now working on a pamphlet to be finished around the same time as the video, based on the same script.  This pamphlet should be helpful for mobile-video projection with the new video as well as for leafleting.  In addition, we’ve also planned to restructure our website so that it’s based on the organizational distinctions made in the video and pamphlet:

First, the bulk of the site will be categorized along the lines of “Speciesist Oppression” / “Veganism” instead of “Vegan Basics” / “Living Veganism.”  This change, grouping all the “veganism” articles into one section, reflects an understanding that any exploration of veganism as anti-oppression will naturally include an interest in advocating veganism to others: “activism” is included in “veganism.” The added space given to speciesist oppression might also mark a movement by several of us toward more emphasis on ‘veganism 101.’  We’ve found that our initial audience—established vegans who want to advocate veganism as anti-oppression—is quite small.  2010, for several of us, seems to suggest a return to focusing on outreach to primarily non-vegans.

Another big change is that the new “Speciesism” section, more thorough but perhaps less detail-oriented than our current pamphlets, will no longer be organized by industry (“Food” / “Circus” / etc.) but instead along the lines of “Exploitation” / “Confinement” / “Forced Labor” / “Ownership” / “Physical Violence” / “Killing” / “Devaluation.”  This change, we hope, will bring attention to the practices and factors that repeatedly show up in many forms of oppression, human and nonhuman.

I think this organization is more conducive to a holistic understanding of veganism and to an understanding that all forms of oppression are worth opposing for similar reasons.  I think it implies that we usually don’t  need different facts or theories for each form of vegan activism (anti-circus, anti-wool, etc.); instead, the broad principle of non-exploitation can simply, consistently be applied to each instance.  Often, the same exact phrases or sentences could be said about all forms of oppression.  Highlighting this fact might make it more clear, in an intuitive way, why vegans oppose all forms of oppression and why we don’t think that such an opposition is “asking too much.”

might also mark a movement by several of us toward more emphasis on ‘veganism 101.’ We’ve found that our initial audience—established vegans who want to advocate veganism as anti-oppression—to be quite small right now. In addition, I personally feel like my own efforts to “convince” animal welfarists to consider anti-oppression have seemed mostly futile. 2010, for several LOVE members, seems to suggest a return to focusing on outreach to primarily non-vegans.

Vegan activism is respectful activism

Veganism has been defined as the doctrine that humans should live without exploiting other animals.  At LOVE we tend to discuss veganism as a broad, holistic anti-oppression or non-exploitation movement.  In these ways, veganism is about tearing down oppressive structures, hierarchies, and old attitudes.  Veganism is about questioning the status quo and, often, criticizing the state of affairs.  But the other side of veganism is what we offer in place of what we’re tearing down.  In order to make veganism sustainable in the long term, I think it helps to offer some positive values, as well, and this is where I tend to talk about respect.

[why respect: a positive foundation for liberation]

The idea of liberation suggests freedom from oppressive forces.  The imagery associated with liberation is a busting of chains, a toppling of hierarchies.  But to make this liberation sustainable over the long term, I don’t think it can only be a movement of tearing down.  I think new attitudes, practices, and cultural options will have to be promoted, as well.  But what positive ideas can provide a foundation for a vegan world?

Many positive ideas have been associated with liberation movements and with veganism specifically: freedom, respect, kindness, compassion, nonviolence, justice, and so on.  It’s difficult to discuss the relative value of these terms because they’re generally clichéd and used without much discretion, but I generally prefer “respect” to the others.

I like the idea of respect because it seems less compatible with power imbalances.  Whereas we could possibly justify caging nonhuman animals in terms of kindness or compassion—“We’re protecting them from predators!”—it seems less possible to distort respect in that way.  “Respect” seems to imply a ceding of power, authority, or choice over to the other.  If we respect other animals, that seems to suggest that we are working in solidarity with them, equal to them, as opposed to being protectors or saviors over them.

[vegan activism as an expression of a core of respect]

If the goal of veganism is not only to topple oppressive systems but also to promote new, more respectful structures, then I think the goal of specific vegan activism is also generally two-fold.  I think vegan activism projects can, aside from criticizing the status quo, also suggest a new, better way.

My work as a poet has highlighted to me that, if I want to convey some idea or feeling (such as respect for all), I’m more successful if I can fully embody that idea in the more nuanced aspects of the communication, not only the literal meaning of the words.  That is, to literally state, “Let’s respect others,” is a start, but I think we will be much more convincing if we can fully embody and actually radiate respect ourselves.

Language is only one form of communication.  As humans, we sometimes privilege our languages as the most important form of communication, but studies have demonstrated that nonverbal cues communicate just as much, often more.  I think most of us know this intuitively—“Actions speak louder than words.”

I don’t believe that disrespectful, violent activism can help us achieve a respectful, nonviolent end.  I think the most permanent change will come from a whole way of living rooted in a core of respect, a core that is unshakable and from which respectful actions flow.  All forms of communication that emerge from that core are tinted with respect.  I think activism coming from such a core, due to its honesty and consistency, is powerful and convincing.

[abolishing the circle: respect for all]

Some advocates have written about “expanding the circle” of ethical consideration to other animals.  What I tend to emphasize instead is “abolishing the circle,” abolishing the idea of any criterion for “consideration” whatsoever.  In my opinion, there is no category of individual that is “going too far” and no category of individual that is “not going far enough.”  Veganism, to me, means indiscriminately respecting every possible group.

In this way, the traditional imagery of liberation—the fist of revolution—does not always seem totally appropriate to me, although it can be exciting.  Many activists rally around an understandable anger toward oppressor groups, people in power committing oppressive wrongs, and people promoting oppressive ideologies.  I think this anger, when used as the main basis for action, fails to acknowledge the positive values needed to bring about a sustainable vegan world.

For veganism to be a sustainable movement, I think respect for all is important.  The “all” in “respect for all” is not only oppressed groups.  “All” is you, me, the oppressed group, and all other groups—the oppressed, the oppressor, everyone.  “All” is the kind of unity that can make veganism sustainable, I think, more than a temporary counterculture. “All” is the reminder that there is no enemy except, possibly, the system that makes us into each other’s enemies.

[interpretations of respectful activism]

Words like “respect” tend to be clichéd and can be used to mean many different things, so I’ve listed some concrete interpretations of what “respectful activism” could mean in a vegan context:

Leaving room for others to “pick up what we’re laying down.” Using inclusive language.  Not blaming or judging non-vegans.  Avoiding dogmatic claims of “Truth.”  Acknowledging that we may not have “Truth” afterall.  Staying receptive and continually striving to learn more.

Avoiding generalizations and “should” language.  Acknowledging that different people have different ideas of “right” and “wrong,” “good” and “bad.”  Acknowledging that people’s situations vary and, due to having different experiences, we might not fully understand their perspective.

Not dismissing people who seem oblivious or misinformed. Valuing understanding more than upholding our current beliefs.  Striving to understand others as well as possible.

[respect is not inaction]

By promoting respect, I don’t want to promote passivity or inaction.  I want to stress my hope for effective, respectful activism.  Activism, however broadly you define it, seems like an integral part of veganism.

To be vegan is to have the goal of liberation for all beings.  An obvious first expression of that goal is to change one’s diet and consumption.  But many people stop there.  In fact, in the general public, diet is sometimes all the word “vegan” means.

As LOVE member V has written, ending our participation in oppression eventually means helping others to end their participation in oppression.  Educating others about oppression and veganism can be an activity that flows from the same core of respect as our diet change.  For this reason, I believe that respectful activism as outlined here is not an excuse for inaction but, on the contrary, an understanding that encourages us to be more involved with vegan activism over the long term.

Feminism and Animals: What You Won’t Find in the 101

(a.k.a. If I Could Change Anything, This Would Be It. … well, Some Of It.)

With the passing of feminist scholar and transmisogynist hate monger Mary Daly, a number of feminist blogs have been singing the praises of her life and her legacy. Few of these female-positive spaces – which profess to work towards empowering women and eliminating oppression – have bothered to mention that Daly, an “ethical vegetarian” and one-time board member of Feminists for Animal Rights, espoused the complete elimination of transgender individuals, calling them “Frankensteinian.” Feminist and vegetarian scholar Carol J. Adams, a much-respected activist in both the feminist and animal rights communities and a former student of Daly’s, sung her praises in a recent blog entry. In the comments of this blog, Adams states that “there were times when we disagreed with her; but what was wonderful is how she opened up the space to have such lively disagreements.” Meanwhile, a comment asking Adams and her readers to acknowledge the very real legacy of harm and intolerance left by Daly, was promptly deleted .

(In a private e-mail to me, Carol stated that she deleted the comment because she wanted to keep her blog entry as simply a memorial to the influence that Mary Daly had on her life, but this felt to me like more of the same denial that Daly ever did anything wrong, more of the legacy of trans-exclusive feminism that has created such a threatening world for gender non-conforming individuals.)

As someone who calls herself both feminist and vegan, or simply as someone working toward a more just world, I find that the correlation between the oppressions based on gender and species is striking. Of course, hierarchies based on inherent characteristics (viewing women as inferior to men, for example, or animals inferior to humans) are hugely problematic in the first place, but nowhere does the intersection between gender and species seem so strong as in the dairy industry. Non-human animals enslaved on dairy farms face oppression and exploitation not only because they are animals, but because they are female. Milk is a product of pregnancy; in order to continue to produce milk, a cow or goat or sheep must be continually impregnated, usually by force and use of a tool referred to as a “rape rack.” This does not mean, however, that the animals get to enjoy a large family and the love of their children; instead, offspring are taken away from the mother hours or days after birth. These infants are often slaughtered immediately or, in the case of calves, raised as veal. In this way, the exploitation of the female reproductive system feeds directly into the system of meat production, the elimination of which vegans and vegetarians are working toward.

Furthermore, the demand for bird eggs results in not only the demand for (female) hens with reproductive systems, but it also cumulates in the slaughter of millions of male chicks who are unnecessary for egg production. (Male chicks do not grow quickly enough to be “profitably” reared for meat, and they are biologically unable to produce eggs. Therefore, they are killed immediately.) Again, these hens would not be trapped on egg farms if they weren’t female, and these male chicks would not be created simply to be killed within hours of birth if humans did not demand the products of female hen reproduction.

It would seem that every feminist, fighting for the rights of women and an end to gender-based oppression, would have a stake in choosing not to eat the products of the dairy industry. Sadly, this is not the case.

And just as I am disheartened by feminists and “ecofeminists” who choose to eat or wear animals and animal excretions, I find it disappointing, not to mention dangerous, when feminist-identified individuals purposefully ignore and deny the struggles of gender non-conforming and/or transgender people. If we are speaking out against women being oppressed because of their gender and gender identity, it seems natural to also speak out on behalf of transgender individuals, who also face systematic oppression because of their gender identities. As long as feminists and vegans are declaring that trans men must have transitioned because they found life “too difficult” as a woman and trans women decried as “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” we are perpetuating a system that discriminates (and kills) based on the way a person experiences his/her/hir gender.

And as long as any of those systems exists – as long as people are experiencing oppression because of their gender, race, class, species, ability, sexual orientation, or any inherent characteristic – we have not achieved a vegan world.

Political Correctness, Political Expediency, and Veganism

This is a guest post from Ida. Ida blogs regularly at The Vegan Ideal, a site that “works to cultivate a process by which theory, learning and skills based on veganism as the principle of non-exploitation are put into practice.”

While L.O.V.E. takes an anti-oppression approach based on the vegan ideal of nonexploitation, there are many nonhuman animal activists who fear that as long as veganism takes into account the oppression of human animals, it will take away from opposing cruelty to nonhuman animals. The argument goes as follows: if we advocate against oppression as it targets human animals whilst advocating against oppression as it targets nonhuman animals, then people – having a finite amount of resources – will refuse to oppose the exploitation of nonhuman animals since it would include the “baggage” of being “packaged” with also opposing the exploitation of human animals, something, it is assumed, potential nonhuman animal activists are likely to be disinterested in.

One nonhuman animal activist who professed little interest in the exploitation of human animals or the Earth recently commented on L.O.V.E. saying that he is focusing exclusively “on living opposed to exploitation of the non-human [animal] species,” regardless of the effect it has on humans or the planet. The rationale for this single-mindedness was subsequently presented on another blog.

Such rationalization of ignoring the exploitation of human animals and the planet isn’t unique. In fact, even the use of metaphorical language like “baggage” and “package” to dismiss the issues concerning oppressed groups of humans or the destruction of the planet’s life-sustaining systems is the same language used for the same purpose as that in two separate mandates on how to effectively promoting “veganism.” Furthermore, those two advocacy directives represent the official policy and positions of two U.S. national nonhuman animal advocacy corporations.

Political Expediency

The argument for exclusively concerning ourselves with nonhuman animals rests on doing what is most politically expedient. Expediency is about attaining an end by emphasizing what is convenient and practical in terms of narrow nonhuman animal advocacy goals. And with this comes a strong willingness to ignore when something is oppressive and exploitative in ways outside of our area of concern.

Political expediency privileges those of us who benefit most from the existing social structure at the expense of those of us who are the targets of oppression. For instance, a White, male(-identified), able-bodied, cissexual, heterosexual, upper/middle-class, Christian, citizen can easily afford to be disinterested in how others are the targets of oppression. Yet the same is not true for those of us who are people of color, female(-identified) people, disabled people, trans people, queers, working-class/poor people, non-Christians, and/or a non-citizens who are currently the targets of that oppression.

As Royce notes in a post at Vegans of Color, framing vegan advocacy in this way leads to the erasure of those of us who can’t, don’t, or won’t fit ourselves into the neat little box of White, male(-identified), able-bodied, cissexual, heterosexual, upper/middle-class, Christian, citizen that is taken for granted as the “mainstream.” As such, the very acknowledgment of issues concerning people of color, female(-identified) people, disabled people, trans people, queers, working-class/poor people, non-Christians, and/or a non-citizens is seen as competing with vegan advocacy.

I find it hard to see how exactly such an advocacy framework actually liberates nonhuman animals – although, I do see how it obviously benefits the most privileged of humans. Of course when we focus exclusively on narrow nonhuman animal advocacy aims, the argument for expediency is persuasive simply because we aren’t concerned with how it affects others.

Basically, what we end up with is an unacknowledged endorsement of the continued exploitation of other humans and the planet’s systems. That is to say, we end up advocating for a political positions and policies that are strongly pro-exploitation and thus pro-oppression.

While claiming to be in defense of what is most efficacious, I believe these statements on advocacy can better be understood as a backlash (or counter response) to advocacy that seeks to be more inclusive and just overall. As such, advocacy based on political efficacy is a form of counter-advocacy. That is, it becomes less about promoting the liberation of nonhuman animals than a reactionary response to advocacy that seeks transformational social and political change.

Political Correctness

In many ways, political expediency is a reaction and rejection of political correctness. Correctness is concerned with exactly that which expediency is least concerned about – that is, what is exploitative and oppressive in any way.

Unfortunately, while it is a deeply positive concept, political correctness has been co-opted as part of a reactionary counter-advocacy against social transformation. Pundits like Rush Limbaugh sought to associate being “political correct” with something bad at the same time they coined terms like “feminazi” and “ecoterrorist.” The advocacy of policies and positions that discourage us from taking into account the oppression of other humans and the destruction of our planet fit within this larger pattern of conservative backlash.

I think a great distinction between political expediency and political correctness is offered in the Combahee River Collective’s “A Black Feminist Statement”:

In the practice of our politics we do not believe that the ends always justify the means. Many reactionary and destructive acts have been done in the name of achieving “correct” political goals. As feminists we do not want to mess over people in the name of politics. We believe in collective process.

While I don’t want to speak for the collective, I think political correctness is reflected in the work of L.O.V.E. As Jenna said in her response to comment mentioned above, “Personally, if I don’t have the capacity to be directly involved in the different anti-oppression struggles around the world, I at least strive to be respectful of them.”

While political expediency assumes addressing multiple forms of oppression would result in a competition of oppressions, politically correctness recognizes how expediency itself needlessly constructs oppressions as competing. Instead, political correctness involves an understanding of how addressing multiple forms of oppression is in reality complementary.

Just as political expediency isn’t exactly new, the same is true for political correctness. In fact, political correctness was present during the founding of the vegan movement in the mid-1940s. The following is from a statement of the movement’s founding members:

The Vegan Society seeks to abolish man’s dependence on animals, with its inevitable cruelty and slaughter, and to create instead a more reasonable and humane order of society. Whilst honouring the efforts of all who are striving to achieve the emancipation of man and of animals, The Vegan Society suggests that the results must remain limited so long as the exploitation in food and clothing production is ignored.

Obviously the originators of the vegan movement explicitly framed the emancipation of human and nonhuman animals as a complementary necessity – failure to account for and respect all anti-oppression struggles is understood as being limited and unacceptable. It’s in this spirit of political correctness – of respect for others’ oppression – that veganism was envisioned and to which political expediency becomes a form of counter-advocacy.