steven
This user hasn't shared any biographical information
Posts by steven
Vegan activism is respectful activism
Feb 7th
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.
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”
Holistic veganism
Oct 20th
As a vegan, I’m interested in more than patterns of consumption. I’m interested in dissolving speciesist attitudes, spreading an anti-oppression worldview, & ensuring respect for all. I oppose human oppression as much as nonhuman oppression. I value honesty, respect, & community. I value discussions about respectful communication, discussions about the confinement of any species, & discussions about racism in the vegan community. I want to help ensure that the vegan movement is not transphobic or sexist. I want a veganism that works for everyone—not just “the animals” & not just the middle & upper class. You might call this approach “holistic veganism”: to acknowledge all issues connected to veganism & speciesism.
Holistic veganism is a target of continual criticism from so-called “practical vegans.” Their argument is that language usage is unimportant—that worldviews are unimportant—that even human liberation movements are unimportant (!). Instead, they claim, only suffering & happiness matter. And they claim that, because “there is so much animal suffering,” we should ignore all that other stuff. This was, for a time, my understanding, too, but I’ve come to question a lot about this approach. Now I pose the question, Is “practical veganism” really practical?
My current belief is that, if our goal is liberation for everyone, holistic veganism is actually more ‘practical’ for at least two reasons. First, holistic veganism takes into account an understanding of the nature & structure of the oppression we wish to end—how it came to exist & how it is perpetuated today. Second, holistic veganism takes into account ideas & attitudes perceived to be intrinsically connected to veganism & the world we want to create.
The structure of oppression
The origin of oppression
When we understand the origin of oppression, I think we understand how to stop oppression at it’s earliest root. This is a reason to focus on exploitation. Nibert’s theory of oppression explains that exploitation is where nonhuman oppression begins. (We wouldn’t have the confinement, killing, or physical violence of animal agriculture if we didn’t first choose to exploit other animals for the products of the bodies. It all starts with exploiting them for their bodies.) Because of this, veganism is essentially a movement to end exploitation, & we talk about “the vegan ideal of nonexploitation. ”
On the other hand, “practical veganism” dismisses this understanding of cause & effect as “just a bunch of theories,” & they dismiss “exploitation” as an “abstract concept.” Because of this, “practical vegans” push aside non-exploitation ideals in order to make room for new, reduced-suffering versions of exploitation, which keep the cycle of oppression going in new forms.
The perpetuation of oppression
When we understand how oppression is perpetuated, I think we understand how to take away the support system & weaken the structure of oppression. This is motivation to consider ideas, attitudes, & language. Nibert’s theory of oppression explains that speciesist ideas justify nonhuman oppression, making it appear normal & inevitable. (“It’s O.K. to kill them; they’re just animals.”) So, as a vegan, I work on my own speciesism & I try to stop the spread of speciesism through language. I believe that, without speciesist atittudes as a justification, speciesist behavior couldn’t continue.
But “practical veganism” dismisses these concerns. “Practical veganism” asserts that attitudes don’t have to change—only patterns of consumption have to change. I think this understanding ignores that our attitudes determine our consumption & our behavior.
Ideas & attitudes connected to veganism
I recognize speciesism as one oppression among many, so I tend to discuss both speciesism specifically & oppression more broadly. I recognize the centrality of respect to anti-oppression work—so I promote respectful activism & respectful communication. I recognize veganism as a dedication to questioning everything—social norms, advocacy norms, & my own beliefs—so I invite debate, I continually question conventions, & I strive to learn from others’ criticisms. I recognize veganism as a movement against hierarchy, so I help form groups that avoid hierarchical structures (L.O.V.E. is a collective).
But again, “practical veganism” ignores these concerns, accepting & reinforcing any social norm consistent with “effectiveness”; working within hierarchical structures that distribute power unequally; & dismissing, even silencing, criticism within their groups.
In defense of holistic veganism
If our goal is liberation for all beings, I think a holistic understanding of veganism is helpful. It helps us to recognize the origins of that oppression, so we can stop it at the root. It helps us to recognize how that oppression is sustained, so we can stop feeding it. And it helps us to ensure that our groups and our outreach efforts are built on principles consistent with a vegan world.
Some of the common criticisms of holistic veganism arise from a genuine, core difference in values between vegans. Much of the criticism, however, seems to be simply misinformed. There are people who seem to honestly believe that, if we aren’t “practical vegans,” we must be arrogant, obsessive, uninformed vegans. My intention with this post has been to clarify some of the reasons—almost completely overlooked—why a holistic understanding of veganism may in fact be helpful, logical, effective.
The honey issue & focusing on the most marginalized groups
Oct 12th
The first result when one searches the words “vegan” & “honey” on the Google search engine is the website “Why Honey is Not Vegan.” This website, created in 1999, explains clearly & directly the reasons why veganism—in its original sense, as non-exploitation—stands against the exploitation of bees. The website pairs this explanation with an in-depth exploration of how honey is produced, allowing the reader to really understand bees & feel for their situation.
The website’s creator, Noah Lewis, is currently raising money to fund a complete overhaul & revision of the site. Proposed additions to the site include information on colony collapse disorder, a letter to raw vegans who eat honey, a review of Bee Movie, & an examination of honey & honey bees as depicted in children’s literature. The updated website would dispel myths & common misunderstandings about honey & antioxidants, the ethics of eating fruit that’s been pollinated by bees, & organic/natural beekeeping.
Beyond promoting Noah’s specific effort, I want to use this post to discuss one of the values I see embodied in this effort. That is, while it explains veganism to the public, it insists on solidarity with some of the most marginalized nonhuman animals—insects. Moreover, by arguing for the liberation of that most marginalized group, I think it effectively argues for the liberation of all groups.
Focusing on the most marginalized groups
Some vegans question an outreach effort that specifically addresses “the honey issue,” especially since other advocates intentionally avoid the subject. In a conversation with Ida at The Vegan Ideal, Noah explains the motivation behind a website exclusively about the exploitation of bees:
I see my page on bees as akin to when other social justice movements focus on the most marginalized groups. If we don’t speak up for bees now, when are we going to, exactly? In other social justice movements, the more privileged groups are always blaming the more marginalized groups, saying that they’re holding back the movement. The LGBT movement exemplifies this, where wealthy white suburban gays and lesbians are embarrassed by flamboyant pride parades and don’t understand what the T has to do with the LGB.
Along with ensuring the inclusion of bees into our idea of veganism, I think focusing on bees can actually help to effectively communicate the core ideas of veganism. When I discuss veganism with others, it’s important to me that I communicate the core, the real root, of what I’m doing as a vegan & what I feel as a vegan. For me, this means making it clear that I’m opposed to all animal exploitation. The method I’ve used for communicating this has been talking about “exploitation itself.” I try to strip away all the particulars & talk about exploitation, force, & oppression in very general terms. I’ve come to understand, however, that focusing on the most marginalized groups—human or nonhuman—tends to do this same kind of thing. I think that to seek liberation for the most marginalized groups is not only to seek liberation for those specific groups. To seek liberation for the most marginalized groups seems, instead, to demonstrate an opposition to all oppression—an opposition to “every possibility of oppression and exploitation.”
While L.O.V.E.’s approach has often been to question multiple speciesist practices in the same pamphlet—or to question multiple forms of oppression in the same blog post—I think another useful approach is to focus on a single instance of oppression & use that discussion as a vehicle to spread underlying non-exploitation ideals. This is especially relevant to everyday conversations about veganism. Often, we have an opportunity to speak to people about specific forms of exploitation that are mentioned in conversation. We can use these conversations to spread ideas of non-exploitation in general. This is what Victor & Miranda have done with a recent circus pamphlet, suggesting underlying themes of choice & consent, & I think this is what “Why Honey is Not Vegan” does.
For more:
- Noah writes about “normalizing radical and radicalizing norms.”
- “Why Honey is Not Vegan” Kickstarter page (donations accepted until Oct. 14 or until goal is reached).
Is it natural? Does it matter?
Sep 7th
In a sociology course I’m taking, to convince the class that social change is possible, the instructor told us, “Humans don’t actually have any instincts.” In Robert Jensen’s Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity—a book that I recommend—to convince readers that change is possible, Jensen emphasizes that aggressive, king-of-the-hill masculinity is socially constructed, not natural. Every day, vegans make arguments to non-vegans that humans are naturally herbivores because of our teeth, the way we chew, and our difficulty with digesting raw flesh. In each of these examples, someone advocating social change assumes it’s important to debunk the “naturalness” of some human behavior.
First, I’d mention that these claims are often hard to support. How do you define “natural”? Why does the category “natural” include all animal behavior except recent human behavior? Why isn’t the anti-oppression movement “natural,” too? After all, it’s happening! Maybe by a trick of terminology one could say that humans have no “instincts”—but most of us get hungry when we need food, most of us feel a desire to do the acts that lead to reproduction, and most newborn babies “know” to turn their head and suck for nourishment. Refusing to call these “instincts”—even when they’re called “instincts” for nonhuman animals—is not only confusing but also, unless I’m missing something, speciesist.
My point here is not to argue that our violence is “natural” but instead to bring the emphasis away from what’s “natural” and toward what we actually feel is right—what we feel we want to support. The reason I’m vegan is not because I think it’s the “natural” way. It’s because I think it’s the best way. It’s the way that feels best to me in my gut, and it’s the way that makes the most sense to me logically. I’m vegan because, to me, it seems fair, equal, beautiful. I’ve been making some changes in my life over the past couple years—working to be more respectful to everyone; working to feel less anger, and to deal with anger in calm, nonviolent ways; working to dissolve the sexism and racism I notice in my thoughts. It doesn’t seem relevant to me whether these change efforts are “natural.” The point is that they make life better for me and for everyone around me.
Instead of challenging the “naturalness” of violence and hierarchy, I think we can just challenge violence and hierarchy directly. We can assert that “naturalness,” however defined, doesn’t really matter to us. We can assert that we want to build a better world, one that is fair and beautiful for everyone. And if that means working to change some “natural” behavior, then I think that is o.k. We are willing to do that for each other.
Setting short-term, concrete goals
Jun 12th
When our ultimate goal as vegans is as big as “achieve a vegan world,” we can sometimes be confused about where to begin. We know where we want to go, but we have so many different tasks that we can work on—so many people to persuade, so many places to spread the word, so many practices to help change. Even after we decide which pathways seem more “effective,” we still might be confused about what to do with today, here and now. This is why I want to emphasize short-term, concrete goals: They focus our effort on actions we can take today. By setting smaller, measurable goals for this week, this month, or this year, we can more effectively move toward the bigger goal of a vegan world.
Short-term goals can also encourage us along the way. By repeatedly reaching our short-term goals, we can stay empowered, energetic, and hopeful. In contrast, if we only think about the final goal, achieving a vegan world, we may feel we’ve made little or no progress, and we may get discouraged. So I think making smaller, measurable goals is a practical way for us to keep moving in the direction we want to go.
Now I’d like to outline my own goal for this summer. I want to share this goal both to benefit the readers of this post (for demonstration and for inspiration) and to hold myself publicly accountable to this goal. I’ve broken it into three sub-goals to make it more manageable.
—————————————————————
Goal: Create an anti-oppression vegan video clip to be used for online activism and, possibly, mobile video projection.
Finish by: August 31, 2009
Purpose:
(1) To increase the effectiveness of vegan activism by providing a resource that combines the impact of video with a clear anti-speciesist message and follow-up actions.
(2) To demonstrate to the vegan community the power and relevance of an anti-oppression view when doing public outreach.
Sub-goal 1: Finish a rough script for the video.
Finish by: June 30, 2009
Sub-goal 2: Select all videos and images for each section.
Finish by: July 31, 2009
Sub-goal 3: Assemble and edit footage, record narration, add closed captioning.
Finish by: August 31, 2009
Budget: $0
To stay accountable, I will post updates—at each “finish” date—as comments on this thread. I’ll also note my progress in my L.O.V.E. Myspace updates, which I send monthly to our mailing list.
—————————————————————
As you can probably imagine, I’m very excited about this project! By making it a clearly (and publicly) stated goal, I hope to ensure that it’s a success.
I encourage others to comment on this post describing their own short-term projects. What are you or your local group working on? This kind of discussion might help spread ideas, provide inspiration, and make us all more publicly accountable in working toward our goals.
The audience is everybody
May 29th
If we want a vegan world, then I don’t think it’s effective to limit our audience to certain age groups, racial groups, social classes, political affiliations, or other “demographics.” I want everyone to hear the vegan message.
For some, veganism will be a natural and easy fit. I want those people to hear me, so they can join in and make a difference. For others, veganism will seem radical or impossible. But I want those people to hear me, too. These “others” may in fact be most affected by our perspective. Even if their current lifestyle is the opposite of veganism, they may be on the cusp of a life-changing experience. And if their lifestyle is the opposite of veganism, that might also mean there’s more to gain from their eventual veganism. (Think of an avid hunter who goes vegan and surprises everyone around them; suddenly the whole community is a lot more curious about veganism!) And this all stands in addition to the obvious problem of prejudice (literally prejudging people as “receptive” or “unreceptive” based on factors like gender and race). My proposition is that we can reach out lovingly and respectfully to anyone who is willing to listen.
Of course, this kind of assertion—“the audience is everybody”—begs for some qualification.
Embracing an audience of everybody doesn’t mean I purposely seek out an audience that I feel will be unreceptive. It doesn’t mean I completely forget about prioritization and spend hours talking to people who aren’t even listening to me. And embracing an audience of everybody doesn’t mean that I enter communities as a cultural outsider, declare the righteousness of veganism, and then leave. No, I think this “touring activist” model may well ignore the importance and value of community-based activism and grassroots, person-to-person outreach.
Embracing an audience of everyone doesn’t mean I promote veganism as a single-issue cause, telling individuals and institutions, “I’m fine with your racism and heterosexism; I just want you to stop oppressing nonhumans!” No, it just means I don’t let that existing racism and heterosexism turn into an assumption on my part that those people will “never change.” It simply means I don’t give up on people or shun people. It means I try to stay open to anybody who will consider the vegan ideal. So an audience of everyone doesn’t mean I sacrifice my integrity or my idealism: No, it means I take my idealism to the streets and share it with people—anybody who will listen!
New information or new perspective?
Apr 13th
Lately I’ve been reviewing slaughterhouse investigations and other footage in order to compile an anti-oppression, anti-speciesist video clip for online activism. Much of the footage I’ve reviewed has come from animal welfare organizations, and most of it has included narration from those groups. In reviewing these videos, I’ve noticed a big difference between the approach to narration in those videos and the approach I plan to use.
In these videos, the general method is to “expose” specific practices on factory farms, fur farms, puppy mills, and other such places. Facts and figures are inevitably involved, and credible sources are required to prove that this is really what happens to other animals. Along with the intended purpose of creating awareness of specific cruel practices, I think the effect of this approach is to reinforce the idea that, if the specific practices weren’t so cruel, then confining and killing other animals would still be O.K.
One short video advertisement was over-dubbed with the song “Old McDonald Had a Farm” and showed factory farming footage. The message, of course, is that most animal foods don’t actually come from family farms like “Old McDonald’s”—they come from farms that confine and kill other animals in much more brutal ways. This specific move is common among animal welfare groups. Peta2 prints a pamphlet titled “What They Never Told You” that starts with the same declaration: “This is Not Old McDonald’s Farm. The meat, eggs, and dairy products that you consume no longer come from the small family farms that you see in children’s books.” These arguments criticize factory farms, yes, but only at the cost of reinforcing the idea that it’s harmless to eat meat, eggs, and dairy from smaller, family-owned farms.
If we want to end speciesism and animal exploitation everywhere—not just the most cruel instances of it—then I don’t think a focus on exposing specific cruelties is effective. Due to the excessive emphasis on specific details, there ends up being nothing said about the underlying problem of use without consent (which exists with or without the specific practices). When we focus on “exposing” all the specific details of factory farming, I think we end up telling the public that what they already know about meat—that other animals are killed in order to produce it—is not worth opposing in itself.
I propose an alternative: When using footage or images of specific speciesist practices, we can couple it with text and narration that question people’s whole worldviews, not just their stance on a single product. Instead of getting into so much detail about a specific practice—“Did you know that chickens on factory farms are bred to grow so fast that…?”—we can ask people to reconsider what they already know: “Have you ever thought about how human animals kill other animals—take away their lives—just because we like the taste of their bodies?”
If our goal is to challenge speciesism, then any specific details we present aren’t the main point. The main point is to bring people to face what they already know—that other animals are killed in order to produce meat—and make them look at it closer, see it for what it really is, really confront it and examine it.
If we can make people question oppression this directly, then we are actively working to disrupt the ideology of speciesism—the ideas ingrained in us by traditions, media, and social norms that make us think it’s normal or reasonable for humans to confine and kill other animals.
When we disrupt the ideology of speciesism like this, we’re not only affecting the other animals that new vegans save with their plant-based diets—we’re putting whole worldviews into circulation. We’re giving people the realizations necessary for them to start questioning every speciesist practice they encounter from there forward. We’re actively laying a foundation for the vegan world we want to create.
Putting it out there
Mar 18th
As one who works for social change, I’m often involved with affecting the worldviews of others. I’m involved with spreading ideas, philosophies, and perspectives. (For anti-oppression veganism, I think this means presenting the vegan ideal and challenging its antitheses—exploitation, human supremacy, and speciesism.) Victor has written in another post about opening our minds to everyday forms of activism that all vegans can do. I want to focus now on forms of everyday activism that help to spread the ideas of veganism and anti-oppression in order to affect the worldviews of others.
If we can break down traditional barriers for how we spread ideas through activism—maybe even adopting another name for it, like simply “putting it out there”—then the possibilities for presenting the vegan worldview are endless. Every day, most of us have at least a few different means to spread such a message: If we talk to co-workers, friends, classmates, or family, we can speak up about social or ethical issues when relevant. If we have a bike or car, we can apply stickers to them—same goes for buttons on a bag. If we have access to bulletin boards at work, school, or anywhere else, we can hang fliers. If we use e-mail, we can add a signature to our messages with online links or quotations. If we have Facebook, Myspace, or similar accounts, we can utilize both our profile space and our comments to others, writing about our beliefs as well as posting videos and pictures. If we’re taking classes, we can speak up about relevant issues, bringing a vegan perspective into the picture when it may be otherwise ignored. If we’re buying a friend a gift, we can consider a thought-provoking book or film. If we’re near a college campus or attending one, we can chalk anything we want on the sidewalks (which is, of course, very fun also). And many of us can use other, more specialized means to “put it out there,” depending on our individual opportunities. Even if we’re shy or we have little activism experience—or if we don’t have much money or time to put toward activism—many simple options for getting our message out in the world are available to us right now.
To help bring about a vegan world, we can each work continually to utilize more of these simple options for “putting it out there”—even if we don’t consider ourselves “activists” in the traditional sense. We can inject (or at least tint) these communication opportunities with messages that spread an awareness of (and aversion to) power imbalances, violence, hate, force, exploitation, and use without consent. And we can spread positive alternatives, as well: an appreciation for the Earth and fellow life, a perspective that looks critically at inherited attitudes and practices, an excitement toward creating change in peaceful ways, and a worldview that embraces freedom and respect.
I think that this view of activism, or “putting it out there,” can be a source of continual hope and reassurance for us. Maybe the world is full of oppression right now. Maybe we disagree with much of what happens in the world. But as individuals—“activists” or not—we have every chance to make a difference. We have every waking moment to work at being who we want to be—to embody and radiate the values in which we believe.
Effectiveness and Striking at the Root
Feb 27th
First, a disclaimer: I think it’s important to remember that effectiveness is only one part of what makes a form of activism viable. We could, for example, analyze whether or not it’s “effective” to bomb the homes of vivisectionists to create change. If we did, I would argue it’s probably not effective; others may argue that it is. However, there’s a bigger reason aside from “effectiveness” why I’d never bomb the home of a vivisectionist: It is an act of violence, and I’m against violence. So yes, I could say that “it’s not effective to use bombs,” but I give caution about focusing on effectiveness in that case, because I think there’s a bigger issue to consider.
Defining “effectiveness”
Arguments based on “effectiveness” arise frequently in discussions about activism and social change efforts. Countless decisions are based on what we judge to be the most effective or efficient plan of action. Many people shun their own intuition or ethical ideals because another path is assured to be more effective. Because this term is central to so many discussions about activism, I think it’s important to reflect on what it really means to us.
At this point, I see “effectiveness” as a measure of how far, how quickly, and how assuredly an action brings us toward our final goal. That is, if we want to accomplish something, I think our “effectiveness” means how quickly, directly, and assuredly we accomplish it. This can be difficult to estimate, to be sure, but this is what makes the most sense to me right now.
I’ve written that my “final goal” is a vegan world. I want to clarify that a vegan world, to me, is not just “the practical application of animal rights” or a something used “to reduce suffering” but instead the actual goal in itself. My goal is for the vegan ideal of non-exploitation—the philosophy and practice of anti-oppression—to be adopted on the large scale.
I intend to write several posts exploring ways to maximize effectiveness by this definition, but I want to propose one guiding principle right now.
Striking at the root
I care deeply about every instance of suffering, but I refuse to see that suffering as faceless and random—as if it’s by chance that human animals routinely enslave and kill nonhuman animals. I think when we notice suffering, we can ask, “What is the cause of this suffering?” and “What allows this suffering to continue happening?” Then we are looking for the root of the problem.
I think this strategy makes sense. We identify and work directly on the problem itself instead of working on the symptoms of the problem. This is where some amount of my criticism for anti-cruelty activism comes from. Anti-cruelty, anti-suffering activism seems so caught up in the “what” of nonhuman suffering that the “how” and “why” are ignored. But I think the “how” and “why”—the system of oppression that breeds the suffering—are the keys to understanding how we can effectively stop it from persisting. As L.O.V.E. member Victor pointed out: Making this criticism does not mean we are pro-suffering. We just see suffering as rooted in oppression. Without the oppression, the suffering doesn’t occur. If we get at the root (oppression), then the tree (suffering) falls.
We can get more specific yet, seeking the root causes of oppressive systems and asking how oppression is sustained and reproduced. Many of us at L.O.V.E. have been convinced by David Nibert’s model for a theory of oppression in Chapter 1 of Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation. Dani at The Vegan Ideal has summarized this theory of oppression and paired it with an analysis of veganism’s role as a theory of anti-oppression.
Acknowledging deeper roots
A deeper root arises when we acknowledge that speciesism is only one form of oppression among many. It can be enlightening to see speciesism in this context, especially for vegans who have already been involved in activism as a single-issue effort. For many, there’s a “click” and everything makes a lot more sense—veganism has so much more context than before.
Acknowledging the interconnection, we can seek out and support other liberation struggles, building bridges and forming coalitions, knowing that this only strengthens our ability to see, understand, and oppose oppression of all kinds—human and nonhuman. We can learn from other anti-oppression efforts about what works and what doesn’t. We can all strive to eliminate any of our beliefs that may be tinted with ableist, ageist, classist, heterosexist, racist, sexist, or transphobic attitudes. (And again, this is a situation where my disclaimer applies: We don’t just oppose sexism to make us more “effective” as vegans—although I think it does make us more effective as vegans. Sexism is worth opposing for its own reasons, before and after “effectiveness”!)
I’ll here note that I don’t think of true liberation as “expanding the circle” but abolishing the circle. I see the circle itself, the doctrine of respecting some and oppressing others, as a problem. This leads me to the deepest root I know to discuss: respect for all life and existence.
I see respect as the reason for my vegan stance and my anti-oppression stance. For example, Why am I opposed to exploitation? Because exploitation disrespects the individual, and I want to respect all life. So we can acknowledge this root by working to respect everyone of all species, races, genders, and classes—all struggles. And we can practice respectful activism and nonviolence, so as to respect the audience of our outreach (even those who mock us and work against us!).
Real, long-term change
“Striking at the root” is important to me because I think it’s the best (only?) way to achieve real, long-term change. I think it’s great to save any number of individuals from immediate threats of violence and exploitation, but what I really want is to solve the problems that create and sustain violence and exploitation in the world. What I really want is a world without violence and exploitation—a vegan world. So I judge my activism by how much closer it brings us to that world.