Activism as being, not doing
Dec 29th
This past summer I read a lot books and articles about “veganism”—mostly from Vegan Outreach, some from Peter Singer—that suggested what we “must” do as vegans: that is, we “must” reduce the most suffering possible with our time; it is our “moral obligation.”
I think I became addicted to this sense of moral obligation. For most of the summer I tried to justify my actions by this standard: “Is it ethical for me to write poetry? Activism reduces more suffering.” “Is it o.k. to spend so much time with my girlfriend? People are starving.” I “broke down” several times over my internal conflict. I went leafleting when school started in the fall, which made me feel a little better. I was nervous, but it was the ethical thing to do. I was doing my duty.
Since the summer I’ve started to experience activism differently. This fall, V pointed out to me a problem with “should/must” language. Telling others what they “must” do assumes things about their life and their personality that they have money to donate, or that they’re able-bodied). I tried shifting my language from “we must” to “I want.” I tried showing more respect to people who wouldn’t go vegan. I tried to stop judging others for the suffering they didn’t help stop.
Because leafleting felt so forced the first time, I didn’t leaflet again for two months. Then in the fall one day I woke up and thought, “I feel good. I want to do something to help others. I will leaflet.” The action came from “I want” instead of “I must.” I felt less nervous. Instead of doing my “duty,” I was doing what I wanted.
I recently realized that V has written to me about this difference before, referring to “internally driven” versus “externally driven” activism. V had pointed out that many people start doing activism with external motivation, trying to secure good feelings or a “do-gooder” image, but their motivation often shifts over time. V explained, “With internally driven activism, the activist is motivated by something inside themselves and activism feels much more integrated into the individual (as opposed to being an identity).” As V wrote, “activism is the external expression of the internal state.”
Activism as “being,” or internally driven activism, is also less directly focused on “results. “ If a person is “simply” “being” the love (or respect, compassion, peace) they feel, they’re not directly concerned with the number of leaflets they distribute. They’re concerned with being the most complete expression of love possible.
Allowing my activism to become more internally driven has been healthy for me. Instead of hating myself for the suffering I don’t stop—holding myself responsible for changing the world—I can focus on who I am. I can focus on my effort and my actions.
Basing our advocacy on values we actually believe in
about 1 year ago - 1 comment
Many animal advocacy groups emphasize being “normal” or “mainstream” in order to reach a bigger audience, even when being “normal” or “mainstream” means participating in exploitation or excluding some groups. There are many examples of this. Some groups say we should eat honey in public so we don’t alienate mainstream (speciesist) audiences. Some groups say [...]
New video available: “You Can Help Stop This”
about 1 year ago - 2 comments
L.O.V.E.’s new video and pamphlet documenting speciesist oppression, “You Can Help Stop This,” is now available at YouCanHelpStopThis.com. Video subtitles are available in Chinese, Dutch, English, and Greek, with more coming soon (please contact us if you’d like to contribute another); pamphlet translations are coming soon. The video can be watched on Youtube and Vimeo, [...]
Examples of community-based activism
about 1 year ago - 2 comments
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 [...]
Update on the activism video and related projects
about 2 years ago - No comments
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 [...]
Vegan activism is respectful activism
about 2 years ago - 3 comments
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 [...]
Political Correctness, Political Expediency, and Veganism
about 2 years ago - 4 comments
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 [...]
Giving meaning to veganism
about 2 years ago - 6 comments
Vegetarians often have an ambivalent relationship with the animal welfare corporation PETA. In the past, I had reservations about that corporation (e.g., the “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign), yet continued to distribute their literature. And when I did, I had to ignore that unsettling feeling of unwholesomeness, justifying my actions to myself in the name [...]
On not mistaking social service for social change
about 2 years ago - 4 comments
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 [...]
Pockets of Change: Spreading Vegetarianism in a Buddhist Community
about 2 years ago - 2 comments
Community based activism is, by its nature, often not well known outside a small area. Community based activism can occur in isolated pockets, so there may be great work happening in our area that we don’t know about. I know it helps me to learn about the community based activism people are engaged in, both [...]
The meanings of ‘our’
about 2 years ago - 6 comments
Recently, while reading a pamphlet we’ve been developing about circuses, an activist stopped at the line, “Some animals, like elephants, may be forced to work for over 45 years for our entertainment,” and suggested replacing the word ‘our’ with ‘your.’ This comment intrigued me because the word ‘our’ was deliberately chosen to suggest a particular [...]
about 3 years ago
Excellent points, Steven! In addition to being an advocate in a manner that feels best for each individual, I think that this way of doing activism also helps to prevent burnout. When performing different forms of activism according to the mandates of others, it is easy to feel as though you are never doing enough, which can lead to overworking yourself. This amount of work can lead to sickness, which makes it even harder to advocate for the issues in which you believe. Instead, why not listen to the needs of your heart/mind/body and write some poetry or take a nap? As long as we are living our values, activism will naturally become part of our daily lives- without the stress and sickness.
about 3 years ago
thank you very much for this thoughtful piece. I think a lot of people who strive to do good in this world often finds themselves in the position you described and it doesn’t help the cause or the person in the long run. Thanks for the reminder to step back and check in with myself.
about 3 years ago
Steven, the beginning of your post is a little frustrating for me to read. You are very much victimizing yourself to the fault of a specific philosophy of activism. No one philosophy or idea should CONTROL all your thoughts and emotions; to me that simply sounds irresponsible. It sounds as if you became dogmatic in your thinking and had to scrap everything you knew of one specific philosophy because of this, potentially losing valuable information and ideas that could have helped shape your activism as well as you as a person. I am happy to hear that you feel better and that you work to affect change in a positive way; as do I with what I want to take from the philosophies which inspire me and make the most sense to me.
about 3 years ago
Another Voice, thanks for contributing your thoughts on this (and for reading our blog in the first place)!
You’re probably right that it’s not best to let a single philosophy control all our thoughts and emotions. For that reason, I acknowledge my story may be more extreme than the average person’s. I tend to take self-discipline very seriously once I believe in something, so the consequences were possibly more serious for me than for others. However, I also think that philosophies as basic as “suffering is bad, happiness is good” set themselves up to be applied to every area of a person’s life. I may have taken the philosophy more seriously than others, true. But what good is a philosophy if you can’t take it seriously–apply it fully, that is–without hurting yourself? I at least think it’d be helpful for writers espousing such philosophies to more actively encourage burnout prevention.
I’m not sure if you’re saying that I became dogmatic while doing working with Ball’s writing or that I became dogmatic when abandoning that writing. I would agree with the former. When I thought and spoke with “must” phrasing–with “moral obligation” phrasing, modeled after Ball and Singer–I was very accusative of people who did not conform to the ethical standards I held. Although I rarely said anything to others about it, my belief in a universally proven “good” and “bad” made it easy for me to label other people as “good” and “bad,” too, based on their actions. I could see that as being dogmatic.
But if you mean that I became dogmatic in dismissing Ball’s writing, I don’t know exactly how you’re using the word “dogmatic.” I feel it is clear that I became more open to others’ ideas at that point. Because I gave up the notion of a universally proven “good” and “bad,” I began to listen more fully to people and respect their disagreements to me more. I don’t understand how those changes are dogmatic.
If you just think it’s a bad idea to dismiss any given philosophy abruptly and completely, I can see that. But I’m not sure that my break from Singer’s and Ball’s philosophy has been abrupt or complete. This post explores mainly the “ethical obligation” perspective those writers use and somewhat the notion of a universally proven “good” and “bad.” There may be other aspects of their philosophy with which I’d still agree.
But I also think it would be reasonable if I didn’t agree with any of it. Since they have a different thesis from me now–”suffering is bad, happiness is good”–and since they’re so astute about bringing their arguments back to that thesis, I think it’s understandable that I don’t agree with their conclusions. When we do still agree, it’s usually for different reasons. For example: I oppose the firebombing of vivisectionists’ homes because it’s violent, disrespectful, and probably (depending on your definition) hateful. But people who follow Singer’s philosophy can only oppose the firebombing of vivisectionists’ homes if they think it will lead to more suffering or less happiness in the long run (because, say, it gives veganism a bad reputation and, therefore, along with the initial suffering of vivisectionists and their families, there will be less reduction of suffering in the long run by vegan activists).
Thanks for the discussion! I’d love to hear your clarifications and further thoughts, and I apologize for the length!
Steven
about 3 years ago
Hi Steven,
I’ll go ahead and just take a few quotations from your post to respond to. Discussion is valuable, but being that I am quite busy, I get frustrated repeating myself and use my time to respond to new points and things that I think need to be clarified.
“You’re probably right that it’s not best to let a single philosophy control all our thoughts and emotions. For that reason, I acknowledge my story may be more extreme than the average person’s. I tend to take self-discipline very seriously once I believe in something, so the consequences were possibly more serious for me than for others.”
This is interesting. You’re conceding to my point, yet admitting that you do it and will continue to do it. This idea of “believing in something” seems to black and white to me. Philosophers would not be respected if they were “wishy washy”; however, we live in the real world and are looking to apply our knowledge where it makes sense, not concern ourselves with abiding by rules of a philosophy that could potentially be self-destructive. I’m not trying to point out your faults and be mean; it simply concerns me when I see a fellow vegan thinking like this.
“But what good is a philosophy if you can’t take it seriously–apply it fully, that is–without hurting yourself?”
Am I reading you right? What good is a philosophy if you can’t take it seriously without hurting yourself? I don’t understand this at all; why would I want to hurt myself in the name of philosophy? Typo maybe?
“When I thought and spoke with “must” phrasing–with “moral obligation” phrasing, modeled after Ball and Singer–I was very accusative of people who did not conform to the ethical standards I held. Although I rarely said anything to others about it, my belief in a universally proven “good” and “bad” made it easy for me to label other people as “good” and “bad,” too, based on their actions. I could see that as being dogmatic.”
This is what I meant as dogmatic. I am vehemently opposed to the idea of their being no concrete moral truths. This is an entirely different discussion though.
Here is how I opperate. I do believe I have a moral obligation to reduce suffering. However, I don’t belive this because of a philosophy. I believe this at my core. I don’t let it control my life 24/7. I don’t give myself a guilt complex. I relax. I hang out with friends and play music. I constantly ask myself, “What good does such and such do for animals?”. For example, what good does working myself and burning out do for animals? What good does depriving myself do for animals? What good does labeling people good and bad and judging them do for animals? It is this thinking that has shaped my life.
I still espouse aspects of the idea of “moral obligation” and universal notions of “good” and “bad” without being dogmatic. I apply these ideas to my own life to make myself more effective, happier, and clear. People seem to respond to me better, to smile more, to understand and consider my points, and I don’t HAVE to judge them or be angry with them, even if it could be constructed from the philosophy that I tend to follow that I should be.
about 3 years ago
Another voice,
Thank you for continuing this discussing; I feel like we are getting at some important issues, although the communication hasn’t been perfectly smooth. (I want to note—the capital letters I use in this post are not to show anger, but merely to show emphasis.)
You seemed to be concerned about some contradiction in my response. This may be because I see the issue from a couple perspectives.
From a practical perspective, I agree: it’s probably healthy for us to be a relaxed about our philosophies. I look back now and see my own obsessive behavior as kind of foolish, and I vow to try to ‘take it easy’ in the future.
But I also think my foolishness was understandable (maybe not wise, but understandable), because I also tend to see things from a theoretical perspective, which I believe has its place (as I will demonstrate).
From a theoretical perspective: I don’t put much trust in a philosophy that only works when it is used lazily, taken in moderation, or only half applied. VO uses Singer’s philosophy consistently as a foundation for making decisions (examples: promoting “less meat” instead of veganism, promoting oppressive restaurant chains in brochures because it makes veg*nism look more convenient, promoting the consumption of honey by vegans). This consistency is something I always admired about VO, and now I realize it IS something I’ve kept with me. But my point is this: Since Singer’s philosophy is used confidently and with great consistency, even in controversial situations, I feel that it needs to hold up against great criticism.
If we use this philosophy to make decisions about the direction of a movement, then I feel we’d want the philosophy to reflect what we truly want from the movement. But I’m coming to see that Singer’s philosophy does not reflect everything I want from the movement. (For example, owning another human being does not necessarily cause “suffering,” but I AM necessarily against owning other human beings [or any beings].)
Secondly, I wanted to point out: Yes, I think you misread my sentence about following a philosophy that causes you to hurt yourself. I understand how that was a confusing sentence, but notice: If you can’t take it seriously without also hurting yourself, then “take it seriously” and “hurt yourself” are paired together. Taking it seriously causes you to hurt yourself. The only way to remain un-hurt is by NOT following the philsophy.
Lastly, what you wrote here: “I do believe I have a moral obligation to reduce suffering. However, I don’t belive this because of a philosophy. I believe this at my core.”
This is how I felt, too, during the summer. When Victor first discussed “external activism” with me, I didn’t think it described my situation, because the philosophy was so ingrained in me that I didn’t even consider it to be external; I just considered it to be what I believed. I felt like, “Nobody is making me believe this; it’s just what I understand and know to be true.”
But what I am saying now is that, looking back, the philosophy permeated my thoughts more than I thought it did. It’s very peculiar in that way. It WAS, I think, “external,” but it was not a specific person I answered to: it was this logic of moral obligation that sat inside of me.
Some interesting questions for you might be, If you believe in moral obligation at your core, why do you? Could you explain your moral obligation without referring to a philosophy? How did the obligation arrive there, and when? Do you think it’s healthy for you, or do you think it’s holding you back from anything?
I realize this discussion may get tedious pretty quickly, but I’m interested in any response. Like I said, these feel like important issues to me. Also, I want to express real, genuine gratitude for your discussion here. This can all-too-often feel like some cold debate–like we are on different teams or something–but I’m just really honestly appreciative of your conversation at all. Thank you.
Toward a vegan world!
steven
about 3 years ago
Indeed, Steven, it’s only through discussion, analysis, criticism, and revision that we can develop our own philosophies and the actions we’ll take to uphold them. I would hope that no one is too busy to evaluate and discuss her actions as we all work toward making a better world.
I don’t think it’s uncommon for a person to take a philosophy to heart and follow it rigidly, especially if those words had a particularly profound impact or caused a significant change. My introduction to animal rights and veganism was reading Singer’s “Animal Liberation” and for nearly four years after that, I was a huge advocate of the “reducing suffering” approach to vegan advocacy. I devoured writings by Singer and Ball and Pollan; every word they wrote seemed to make sense and apply practically to my life and the lives of those around me. It wasn’t until I discussed these theories and actions at length with other advocates — some supportive, some critical — and was guided to other writings, other philosophies, and other social justice movements that I stopped acting as a squawk box for utilitarianism and began to recognize power and privilege and oppression in this and other aspects of society.
“Sammy,” it’s great that you are able to apply yourself to activism with such levelheadedness and moderation; you state that you have found a good balance between work and play, and you don’t “let [reducing suffering] control [your] life 24/7.” I think it’s important, however, to point out that some people don’t have the luxury of stepping back from their work as anti-oppression advocates. That arm’s length at which some people can view oppression is, sadly, a fact of daily life for others, and you’ll have to excuse us if these things DO control our lives 24/7. While I am able to play music or hang out with friends, I am still conscious of how my words and actions work with or against the systems of oppression that exist. I think it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to be fully conscious of the forces that drive her life every moment of every day; it’s like Steven said in his initial post: “Then peace and respect tints everything I do, the leafleting as much as the hugging as much as the walking and looking and talking.”
Does that “hurt” us or become a “self-destructive” way of life? For me, this awareness has enhanced my life in innumerable ways, but it is also the reason I feel an enormous weight on my heart. And when someone feels something so strongly, so unrelentingly — as I do about ending oppression, dismantling the patriarchy, and empowering women and transpeople — she doesn’t have the ability to remove herself from those guiding philosophies, or apply them only where she sees fit. It just becomes a way of existing.
jenna
about 3 years ago
Steven, I really appreciate your thoughts. I’m glad that as an individual you have put great care into figuring things out, as have I.
What I’m noticing, and have been noticing for the last 9 months or so, is that I am simply different than most “activists”. I have come to grips with my hypocrisies and inconsistencies. I used to try and defend myself, but now I don’t; I acknowledge and embrace them. It’s been a humbling experience admitting I don’t have all the answers. I don’t know if this will make sense, but let me try: I am most concerned with what I can do to help animals. I have figured out the best way for me to do this in all regards. I evaluate new ideas and opinions as they come at me, but frankly all they’ve done is make me stronger in my own convictions.
How is this hypocritical or inconsistent? Well, I want everyone to be vegan, but I don’t think that I can help animals the most by telling people to go vegan. That’s why I like the VO approach; eating less meat to reduce suffering. I think it is a more sustainable and leads to more thought from the average person who would normally dismiss “radical” claims.
I’m not trying to be a jerk, but so far I haven’t heard anything new in this thread that I haven’t already discussed with someone else at another point in time, so I think I may be ducking out. Thanks for the comments and discussion!
about 3 years ago
Another Voice,
I’m disappointed to hear that you’ve gained little from our discussion, but I thank you for entering into the discussion anyway.
I have much more to write about promoting veganism vs. promoting “less meat,” and ideas about “effectiveness” in general (what it really means to ‘do the most we can for animals’), but I will cover them in a later post, since they stray from this topic considerably. I hope you keep visiting, keep trying to understand why we hold the views we do. Different people have different “click” moments, so I encourage you to stay tuned in.
peace & love,
steven
about 3 years ago
steven, i really respect and enjoy this post. thank you for outlining this. it helps people such as myself feel less guilty for not having found that inner place from which to reach out yet.
s