victor
This user hasn't shared any biographical information
Homepage: http://loveallbeings.org
Posts by victor
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.
Giving meaning to veganism
Nov 7th
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 of “practical”ness: “but their stickers/brochures/DVDs are free and people seem to enjoy receiving them (especially the stickers!).” I was unwilling to give up something I wanted — having free materials to distribute — which I would have had to do if I had admitted to myself how much people are hurt by PETA’s campaigns.
This changed when I witnessed the hurtfulness of PETA’s racist “Animal Liberation” campaign firsthand. Directly seeing PETA’s cynical appropriation of a group’s experience of oppression and the tangible harm it did to our community dismantled the wall of self-deception I had fabricated in my mind to separate the “bad” things the corporation does from the purported “good.”
I could no longer ignore reality so I could keep getting what I wanted.
I was no longer willing to be associated with PETA and decided to stop distributing their materials. And when I did, I was freed from the justifications that had kept me from fully acknowledging, even to myself, the harm done to human animals by PETA. And I began to realize that, by distributing their literature, I was not only unwittingly fundraising for, but also tacitly endorsing a corporation that actively seeks out oppressive campaigns.
Fast forward a few years, and I was in a similar position with another animal welfare corporation that was actively unwilling to examine its own racist and sexist attitudes. I continued to distribute their literature, again in the name of expediency (“What else would I hand out if I stopped using these? Everybody says they’re the most effective pamphlets.”)
But finally I started thinking that I wouldn’t support or even be associated with a racist or sexist organization in any other part of my life, so why was I doing that here? Put in those terms, the decision to stop distributing the literature was easy and I was freed from the strain of trying to reconcile a fear of the unknown (“what would I do if I didn’t use this corporation’s lit?”) with not wanting to being complicit with the racism and sexism of the known.
Thinking back, I am embarrassed that it was so difficult for me to stop supporting these corporations, that something as frivolous as brightly colored stickers or the fear of the unknown was more important to me than the oppression of others. But then again, this is the trap of an oppressive system in action. Oppression is always something that can be ignored so long as it is somebody else who is being oppressed: that’s the very nature of privilege.
And so, having experienced the difficulty of disentangling myself from a dysfunctional relationship with animal welfare corporations perpetuating oppressive norms, I was encouraged to read the strong online response to PETA’s hurtful fat shaming campaign. Vegans publicly declared an intention to stop donating to PETA and mobilized to show their opposition.
These responses to a corporation unwilling to examine its role in perpetuating oppression are expressions of veganism. Veganism is revealed through our actions. When we refuse to give money to these corporations; refuse to link to their websites; renounce the perceived benefits of collaborating with them; publicly express our opposition to oppressive corporations and campaigns; and refuse to promote or otherwise support any of their campaigns and investigations until they take genuine action towards eradicating their institutionalized -isms, we give meaning and life to veganism.
On not mistaking social service for social change
Oct 25th
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 not in the online version), Kivel describes the difference between social service and social change, and the limitations of social service in the context of his work to end domestic violence:
Social service work addresses the needs of individuals reeling from the personal and devastating impact of institutional systems of exploitation and violence. Social change work challenges the root causes of the exploitation and violence. In my travels throughout the United States, I talk with many service providers, more and more of whom are saying to me, “We could continue doing what we are doing for another hundred years and the levels of violence would not change.” I meet more and more people who are running programs for batterers who say, “We are only dealing with a minute number of the men who are violent and are having little impact on the systems which perpetuate male violence.”
In a similar way, from an anti-oppression perspective, animal welfare, which has exploitation as a precondition, is a form of social service and veganism, which recognizes and challenges the structure of oppression, offers the possibility of social change. Ida writes:
[I]f we don’t address the exploitation that is underlying the structure of human supremacy and is justified by speciesism, then there will always be nonhuman animals who are casualties of that exploitation.
…
Prevention means radically transforming our perspective on the exploitation of other animals. Instead of taking the exploitation of other animals for granted and working to do “triage” on the so-called “worst” cases – while leaving others to linger in their exploitation – we view the exploitation of any animals as obsolete. No longer is exploitation seen as a given, but as something that needs to be radically replaced with nonexploitation.
This is not to say that social service work is not valuable: far from it! It is of course important to attend to the immediate needs of individuals.* This is simply being honest: social service, by itself, does not lead to social change.** In fact, Kivel’s essay explains why “many social service agencies may be intentionally or inadvertently working to maintain the status quo,” and this is where social service can hinder social change.
If our goal is liberation for all, I think it’s important to acknowledge the limitations of social service so we don’t mistakenly believe that our work in animal welfare (social service) will somehow lead to animal liberation (social change). And I think it’s important to not confuse social service for social change, so that if our hearts ask us to work for social change, we are able to fulfill that request.
* Though, note: many animal welfare campaigns don’t serve the needs of actual individuals.
** Sanctuaries for non-human animals, though often problematic in practice, are a form of social service that in theory attend to the needs of individuals. But since sanctuaries address the effects rather than the causes of exploitation, they are assured a constant stream of individuals in need of their services. The service violence provider who said, “We could continue doing what we are doing for another hundred years and the levels of violence would not change,” could equally have been speaking about sanctuaries and speciesist oppression.
Sustainable animal agriculture and ethical vegetarianism
Aug 28th
The sustainable dairy, egg and meat trend presents an interesting moment for animal advocates, as it brings to the fore the limitations of the anti-suffering, anti-cruelty rhetoric of animal welfare organizations. Read any vegetarian starter kit or eat-less-meat booklet from one of these groups and you’ll find they are treatises against factory farming (animals suffer in factory farms; factory farms hurt the environment). Many take great pains to state clearly that they’re talking specifically about factory farms, and not about other farms that breed, raise and kill non-human animals.
Sustainable animal agriculture neatly sidesteps all animal welfare concerns. This is why, for the public, it offers an attractive alternative to factory farms. When I worked for an animal welfare corporation handing out their anti-factory farming literature, people all the time would say to me, “That’s why I don’t buy animal products from factory farms! I buy local, organic, free range!” The arguments against factory farming have no relevance to sustainable animal agriculture (if anything, they support it!).
Peter Singer, around whose philosophy all the modern animal welfare corporations are based, was clear from the start that his anti-suffering philosophy only prohibits eating products from animals in factory farms. In Animal “Liberation”, Singer writes “So we must ask ourselves, not: Is it ever right to eat meat? But: Is it right to eat this meat?” (Second Edition, p 160). In a recent book, The Way We Eat, he tells readers where to buy sustainably and humanely raised animal products. Two of many examples:
- “[A]void animal products that come from factory farms. … Information about farms that do not use factory methods is available … at www.eatwellguide. org [the web site’s tagline: local, sustainable, organic], and from … www.eatwild.com [tagline: the #1 site for grass-fed food and facts].” (p. 287)
- “If you eat marine animals, choose species that come from sustainable fisheries … www.thefishlist.org” (p. 288, in the ‘Sustainable Fish’ section)
It’s an odd quirk of history that Singer’s anti-suffering ideas, which explicitly endorse consuming animal products, have been used as the ethical argument for vegetarianism. It is this tension that is exposed by sustainable animal agriculture.
As vegetarian advocates, I think sustainable animal agriculture offers us a great opportunity to examine our message and our ideas. When speaking with the public about vegetarianism, do their questions reveal problems with the message we are presenting? If so, rather than ignoring those problems, I suggest reconsidering the ideas underlying our message. In my own case, it was speaking with a skeptical public that led me to realize that my own ethical vegetarianism was grounded in the vegan ideal of non-exploitation, and not in the anti-suffering arguments promoted by animal welfare corporations. Of course, your reasons for vegetarianism may be different from mine. Regardless of what those reason are, by continually and honestly examining our personal reasons for being vegetarianism, we strengthen our understanding of our beliefs and become more articulate, confident and effective advocates.
The factors of oppression
Jul 30th
In the first chapter of Animal Rights/Human Rights, David Nibert presents a model of oppression I have found helpful to work with. For me, it offers a broader context in which to make sense of my experiences. I encourage you to consider this model and test if it resonates with your own experiences of oppression.
According to this model (this is a slight modification of Nibert), the same three factors create the conditions for and perpetuate oppression of any sort:
| Function | Factor |
| Motivation | Psychological or material gain |
| Capability | Unequal power distribution |
| Justification | Ideological control (including speciesism and other isms) |
.
As an example, the use of non-human animals in zoos may be understood through this model: patrons of the zoo may be motivated by the desire for entertainment; humans, through our supremacy over non-humans, are able to force non-humans to be our captives; and we justify that imprisonment under the guise of conservation, education, and altruism (“they’re safer in zoos than in the wild”).
What I find particularly interesting about this model is that the conventional understanding of speciesism as the cause of speciesist oppression is turned around; speciesism is understood to be a natural product of speciesist oppression. This is important and worth repeating. According to this model, speciesist ideology, such as the idea that human animals are superior to non-human animals, does not cause speciesist oppression; instead, we create these ideas to justify our exploitation of non-humans for psychological or material gain.
This model considers oppression to be a systemic phenomenon, beyond mere individual prejudice. This focus on the system rather than the individual is one of the primary characteristics of the anti-oppression understanding. As well, these factors support each other, so once they are in place, they strengthen each other, creating a cycle that perpetuates oppression.
This model offers a simple structure to complement an experiential understanding of oppression and may be used to help bring clarity when analyzing situations. And so, when confronting the latest atrocity, this model can help us keep our bearings; remember that the individual is caught up in the system; and focus on the illness (the oppressive system) rather than the symptom (the individual act). By understanding the mechanics of the operation of oppression, we can better understand our own role in various systems of oppression and be more effective in our efforts to end them.
Pockets of Change: Spreading Vegetarianism in a Buddhist Community
Jul 15th
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 to draw inspiration from and to learn from their experiences. From time to time, I’d like to share the work of some community based activists in the hopes that it may help you as well.
I’ve been having an ongoing conversation with Jordan Rothstein, a long time fixture in a local vegetarian community, about his advocacy efforts. Jordan has the stated intention of spreading vegetarianism in the Buddhist community he is part of.
Jordan has created a pamphlet that offers a Buddhist case for vegetarianism; as he likes to say, “I speak their language.” Over the years, he has refined this pamphlet in response to his own experiences leafleting with it. Having heard various “Buddhist-specific” rationales used again and again to justify non-human animal exploitation, he addresses those justifications directly in the pamphlet.
Jordan is constantly examining his own work so he can be increasingly more effective. He is eager to swap experiences with other advocates so we may learn from our collective wisdom. Community based activism, free from the fundraising pressures that define corporate activism, offers the freedom for this kind of vital inquiry that helps our activism be alive and responsive to our experiences.
I am appreciative of Jordan’s strong, long term commitment to effecting change within and with his community. I also appreciate the inquiring, open mind he brings to his work. Jordan offers a great example of community based activism in action.
The meanings of ‘our’
Jun 18th
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 approach to advocacy and so I started thinking more about what that word represents.
‘Our’ reminds me not to think of myself as separate from those I am reaching out to and to instead understand that we are doing the best we know how. With this understanding, veganism is a process rather than an endpoint. Veganism as process means I am continually learning about veganism and that my path towards the vegan ideal is meandering and ongoing. So ‘our’ helps head off the judgment that I am ‘good’ and they are ‘bad’ by reminding me that we are all learning how to live our lives at the same time. ‘Our’ helps me recognize that we all have much to offer each other, and to move away from an adversarial relationship speaking at others and towards a collaborative one speaking with one another.
Because we live in an imperfect, messy world, we necessarily fall short, even if we have the best of intentions. ‘Our’ means admitting and accepting my own imperfection in living veganism and giving up any sense of superiority I feel over others. In the case of the circus, it is an acknowledgment that, as a human, I also participate in the oppression of non-human animals. Even as it recognizes our shared role as oppressors, ‘our’ also acknowledges the ability of each one of us to recognize that role and work to end it.
And so I think the word ‘our’ is powerful and important by bringing a basic sense of connectedness with others to advocacy. Whether it’s called respect, compassion, or just plain kindness, it’s how I wish to relate with others and the foundation for the vegan world I wish to live in.
The value of community based activism
May 19th
Listen to the MP3The vegan ideal of non-exploitation is very simple: respect and honor all; and yet it can be difficult for many of us to understand what this means if our usual experiences of relationships are not centered around this ideal. For me, living the vegan ideal means cultivating relationships based on respect, friendliness, trust, honesty, and kindness. Spreading veganism is a process that occurs gradually, person by person, person to person. This is why we very much value community based activism.
Community based activism is activism by community members in the communities we are part of. It’s a way of working to build a community that shares our value of respect for all. We may be involved in multiple communities, small and large, during the course of a single day: our neighborhood, the people we ride the train with, our religious center, the neighborhood grocery across the street, our work place.
Being part of a community means we have repeated interactions with the same people and this means there is time for conversations about veganism. While the vegan ideal is simple, the reorienting it asks of many of us takes time. Through our steady presence in the community, people know they can come to us when they have questions about veganism and people know they can trust us to speak with them with kindness, respect and truthfulness. The great value of community based activism is that we can be available. We can be available to answer questions people have about the whys and hows of veganism, we can be available to provide support during the transition period, and we can be available as part of a growing community dedicated to living veganism.
More than any other groups or individuals, we as community members have the greatest stake in and commitment to transforming our communities. We can be sure we have our communities’ best interests at heart. Because we understand our communities better than anybody else, we know which issues make sense to work on in our community. Because each community is different, there is no one size fits all type or area of activism. And because we are in our communities every day, we can experiment and learn what works and what doesn’t work for our particular communities. In this way, we can be the most effective we can be in building a community of respect.
Just a bunch of normals
Apr 7th
I recently ran across the following on a blog by a well-known vegetarian author promoting a vegetarian diet book:
Rip Esselstyn of Engine 2 Diet fame just sent me this. It’s a six minute video from an Engine 2 potluck. No freaks anywhere. Just a bunch of normals enthusiastically showing off their recipes, telling us their success stories, and letting us glimpse an incredible diversity of healthful vegan food.
Before continuing, please take a moment to watch this promotional video for the diet book. Notice anything?
More >
The importance of public criticism
Mar 17th
In the previous blog post, I mentioned an animal welfare corporation’s claim that 2.5% of the people receiving their literature will switch to a plant-based diet. They have been making this claim for years despite the actual data showing this estimate to be at least one (and possibly two) orders of magnitude too large. Today, less than two weeks after the blog was posted, the claim has been removed from the corporation’s web site. The change was made sometime during this past week, and given the timing, it’s obvious to me the claim was removed as a reaction to the publication of the numbers on this site.
Although that post was not specifically about that corporation and therefore didn’t mention them by name, their reaction to the blog post shows how important it is to make criticism public. Back in 2006, when I first asked them privately about the discrepancy between the numbers, I was offered a non-answer. Now, under public scrutiny, they made no such attempt to defend the numbers and instead quietly removed the misleading claim within two weeks.
I have been advised in the past to bring up my criticisms privately to the animal welfare corporations; yet these experiences are one clear example of how that advice primarily serves to bury criticism rather than support positive change.
As I mentioned in the last post, when faced with criticism, the leadership of the animal welfare corporations often reacts reflexively by covering up the obvious symptoms of the problem being criticized while leaving unexamined and unaddressed the deeper issues involved. Leaving the underlying causes in place offers, at best, a brief reprieve until the next symptom appears. I believe it’s better to directly and honestly face what ails us, own our mistakes, work to fix them, and move on, wiser for the experience.