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.
about 8 months ago
Respect!
“Welfare reforms… fundamentally incompatible with veganism”… Word!
In my experience people certainly do connect with the anti-oppression (vegan) approach, no matter how much welfarist groups claim otherwise.
Thanks for posting these vids!
about 7 months ago
Brilliant, Victor. Thanks so much for the informative presentation and for making the transcript with slides available for reading.
The last slide of Part 1 your presentation is representative of the “welfare” movement and is worsening as time goes on. By starting with “reducing suffering” as the solution, advocates hack at the branches of injustice rather than strike at the root to oppose the exploitation and oppression that causes the suffering (and equally important- death) of nonhuman animals.
See the evidence here of what happened to one well-known activist who went from grassroots abolitionist to corporate reformist to industry insider:
“From COK to HSUS to Whole Foods Market”
http://www.animalrightscommunity.com/abolitionists/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=515
I promote basic rights (life and liberty) extension to nonhuman animals, because as sentient beings, they deserve legal protection from human harm. I also think, as Joan Dunayer argues in Speciesism, that we should extend property rights (recognized as “undeveloped” habitats) to nonhuman animals to prevent further human encroachment and destruction of their means of survival.
I support the anti-oppression approach to veganism and have learned much from reading David Nibert’s Animal Rights/Human Rights. The three factors of oppression are useful in understanding how the ideology of speciesism justifies human exploitation of other animals and the system of human supremacy. I agree with you that the animal rights movement should pay attention to these factors as well as the intersectionality of oppression if we hope to liberate nonhuman animals.
Thank you again for making this presentation available. May we all continue to speak our truth in pursuit of justice for all!
about 3 months ago
Hi Victor,
I know you like to use the concept of consent, but this never felt quite right to me. And even though I’m all for anti-oppression, I want to say something about this fixation on opposition to the focus on suffering. Of course we need to focus on issues of power, but I would like to acknowledge that the only reason power matters is because animals have feelings, we suffer. So even though veganism itself is about oppression, oppression is ultimately about suffering. I get what you’re saying about switching from talking about suffering to anti-oppression. But I’m not so sure how oppression boils down to the issue of consent (is that what you’re saying?) – anti-oppression is ultimately about the systemic causes of suffering, but how do we determine consent? Oppression is systemic, and that’s why you found that focusing on suffering was not enough. I think what makes a lot of “welfarists” uncomfortable is this seeming creation of a false dichotomy between suffering and oppression (which may not be so much a problem with the content of your argument as the way it’s explained). And I’m not sure how the issue of consent can insure that we are doing what is in animals’ best interests.
Here are some words to ponder by a person who shall not here be named (see my blog for more info):
“What it means for animals without rational language (as construed by this modernist discourse being employed) to ‘consent’ and have ‘privacy’ is wholly irrelevant because human-animal relationships are being chopped-up by the cookie cutter of modern white, male middle-class ideals.”
“I’d like to move away from a metaphysical, ahistorical veganism of identity, non-violence, innocence, purity,and savior narratives toward a more conversational, relational, contextual, and responsive version. I think veganism is more of a theory/hypothesis to be tested than an end-all-be-all Truth. Thus it is a process of discovery and creation of something new, different…. Thinking of veganism as a conversation of least violence, a relation to undergo with others rather than a private act of purity and protest.Veganism is an affirmation of others and a promise to do as little violence as is fair. Veganism, then, is not about consumption (or the abstaining of consumption), or about identity, but about relationships, about affiliation and solidarity.”
I pretty much agree with this. I’ve noticed in other posts here a tendency toward the metaphysical which did not appeal to me.
I hope this starts some discussion. I am just beginning to explore here, so if you ask me a bunch of questions, I may not have answers!
“The essence of critical thinking centres not on answering questions but on questioning answers.” -Roger Darlington
about 3 months ago
aiko,
Thank you for your comment on this post. I can’t respond in place of Victor, of course, but I just noticed your comment this afternoon and wanted to at least briefly reply with something.
I think a lot of people would agree with you that “the only reason power matters is because animals. . .suffer” (and “oppression is ultimately about suffering”). I think I’ve hinted at this before in my posts about effectiveness and the goal of a vegan world (and probably others), and I think I have at least vaguely believed it. I wouldn’t really assert it now, but I’m not really asserting anything in that direction right now.
Some assorted comments–
x. I’d mention that making suffering the focus, when it comes to activism, can lead people to ignore, downplay, or forget about the structures in a system of oppression that do not immediately cause suffering. For example, language usage can cause suffering by perpetuating oppressive systems, but the suffering in that case is not immediate, so some people who emphasize suffering might ignore issues of language usage. In this way, even if suffering is thought to be the underlying reason that oppression matters, I think it is practical to talk more about oppression, as vegans, because that emphasizes the system being opposed and the perspective that positions itself against it. (I wrote about this in my post, “Holistic Veganism,” I think.)
x. I think currently what I dislike about some philosophical discussions of ethics and suffering is that they aim to quantify and weigh suffering, as if it were calculable.. I feel a resistance to this effort; I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s because I don’t want individual experiences to be ‘reduced’ to that. (But maybe my systemic understanding of oppression does the same thing, by accounting for people’s experiences systemically?) Also, my disagreeable feeling seems to be emphasized because the writer usually tries to make an argument based on their philosophy–it rarely seems like an honest (or, not predetermined) exploration of ideas (see my thoughts below on rhetoric). I think I’ve become wary of and less interested in philosophy in general; I don’t know.. I think we should be able to use philosophy in a practical, slightly detached way; we kind of have to; to use language at all, even, is to use philosophy, sort of (language is categorization [?]); to talk at all is at least vaguely dualistic. But it’s difficult for me–still–to engage with (philosophical [?]) arguments that aim to account for what I already feel or do. I keep thinking of experiences I’ve had where I or someone else became very attached to a specific ‘philosophy’ and then allowed that ‘philosophy’ to remove them from experiencing life directly and honestly and emotionally. People can become an ideology and ignore what they feel. …But anyway, this probably says more about my preoccupations than your actual subject in this comment. I just got this sort of feeling when I read it, so I wanted to voice that.
x. (side note?) I want to call attention to the rhetoric in the writing you quoted. The way this writer refers to the type of veganism they are pushing against–as “metaphysical, ahistorical veganism of identity, non-violence, innocence, purity,and savior narratives”–as “an end-all-be-all Truth”–and as “a private act of purity and protest”–seems slanted and not really helpful. These descriptions seem to belittle the understandings of veganism in question, not really taking them seriously or considering their worth to someone with different beliefs. (To demonstrate what I mean–does anyone actually consider veganism to be “and end-all-be-all Truth”? That phrase seems to only be used when people are arguing against it. People who argue for it [or something like it] would use other words that presented it more positively, or at least neutrally. One of my relatives, for example, says that the government should not “be our savior”; but no one is out there saying “the government should be our savior”; people are saying the government should “take care of its people,” and so forth.) In representing others’ viewpoints, I’m becoming more determined to respect their ideas and not just use them as fodder for my own argument–something to simplistically contrast myself against.
x. (side note?) I do like the idea of veganism as allyship and solidarity. There was a Vegan Ideal post about that once, and I feel like it has been very relevant to me concerning the meaning of the word “liberation”–that is, “liberation” loses its power and meaning, to me, if it’s just a personal liberation based on doing what you want, regardless of others (i.e., using offensive, “un-P.C.” language as an act of liberation). For me, it needs to be an effort of solidarity, to want freedom for everyone, not just yourself.
I’m not sure if this is helpful at all. Anyway, it is some discussion!
thanks again,
steve
about 3 months ago
Hello aiko,
I think suffering and oppression are different issues: one can be oppressed without suffering (this is a natural goal of animal welfare), and one can suffer without being oppressed. And I think this is okay!: not everything we care about has to fit under one umbrella.
It might help if we understood what we each meant by the word “oppression.” How would you define it in words? I’m reminded of Animal Freedom’s mission statement, which reads: “We are a collective organization dedicated to supporting nonhuman animals in their struggles for freedom from human domination.” For me, this is what anti-oppression is all about: freedom from domination. And since domination implies a lack of consent on the part of the dominated, it makes sense to me to think about consent. On a personal level, I want people to check in with me and get my okay before they make decisions that affect me. I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that.
I believe being mindful of consent is important when we are in the power position (as we are as human animals working against the oppression of non-human animals). Otherwise, we run the risk of dominating the less powerful in our attempts to “help” them (this is the “savior narrative” mentioned by the author you quoted). Consider, for example, how society “helps” people with mental “illnesses” through forced “hospitalization” (imprisonment) and “treatment.” Non-human animal advocacy is filled with examples of how we human animals, as “voices for the voiceless,” impose our choices upon non-human animals. Do those we think we’re “helping” want that help? Are we supporting non-human animals in their struggles or are we “saving” them?
While I do emphasize consent, I’m sure it’s possible to understand oppression from a variety of axes. I don’t have a lot of book knowledge here, so my particular model probably differs from more formal treatments. I don’t know that it’s so important to worry about the nitty gritty details of any particular model. I think it’s more important to have a general model that works for you (which you seem to have already); to remember that all models are incomplete, provisional approximations; and to not mistake models for reality itself. By examining our experiences within the framework of our chosen model, we can refine our understanding. Good models will help us better understand what’s happening and poor models can be refined or replaced.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and engaging in this conversation, aiko! I tried to address what I think was the gist of your comment. I know I didn’t answer some of your questions (this is lengthy as it is!), so please let me know if you find any of this response unclear or incomplete.
Victor