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.
about 1 year ago
I know what this post is a response to. Thank you for responding to my comment on your other post. It has helped clarify some things I have been struggling with. Speaking of “why” and “how,” I was just reading the Wikipedia article on deep ecology and thought immediately of this post. ‘Deep ecology describes itself as “deep” because it persists in asking deeper questions concerning “why” and “how” and thus is concerned with the fundamental philosophical questions about the impacts of human life as one part of the ecosphere, rather than with a narrow view of ecology as a branch of biological science, and aims to avoid merely utilitarian environmentalism, which it argues is concerned with resource management of the environment for human purposes.’
Something to look into.
about 1 year ago
That was a lot to take in. This is my first time posting to this website. Forgive me if I don’t yet see the entire picture. There seems to be a lot of wisdom here.
Regarding Steven’s post on the root of suffering = oppression and the root of oppression = something deeper, I’m guessing the root issue is simply survival (and the fear of not being able to when something we’re accustomed to is taken away).
Maybe oppression is a convenient alternative to chasing a boar through the brush with a spear. Maybe we resent someone showing us pictures of enslaved animals suffering and killed in mechanized fashion, because it would undermine what we perceive as our right to survival.
“What allows” suffering to continue happening and “the cause” of suffering are said to have roots of oppression; oppression seems like a side-effect of making food available and convenient.
Both chasing animals around and oppressing them in convenient, mechanized fashion are approaches I consider to be a waste of good effort that could be spent picking and eating delicious fruits and nuts… without all the cow farts and waste!
That’s much more convenient, me thinks. A little patch of dirt and some seeds… a few trees… water… and sky.
I am not what some would consider a “non-violent” person. Although I do not instigate violence, I have no problem with violence as self-defense, as an absolute last resort. I own a gun and practice gun safety, taking courses and hitting the range on a fairly regular basis. All of the instructors who’ve ever taught my courses say that most people who pack a pistol have never had to draw it and use it. It’s just insurance. So, no, I’m not exactly what you all might consider a “non-violent” person, but I certainly do not eat animals. I feel that animals are the true innocents and it’s our job to protect them (but not to serve them with mashed potatoes and corn).
Everyone I have ever approached with the prospect of vegetarianism or veganism has seemed so utterly entrenched in the pattern of eating animals, they feel it is their god-given right, often citing that phrase from the bible about man having dominion over animals. I counter that as gently as possible, with ruling responsibly, with compassion, as god rules His children (though I’m not exactly Christian).
On some weird level, do people equate their oppression of animals to the suffering of Christ on the cross? Are people are so pissed off and helpless that God would let them suffer on earth, that they indulge in patterns sadism and oppression as a form of striking back at the easiest target: innocent animals (and children)?
Is this a psychological stretch, or is there some ring of truth to it? I don’t know. I guess I’m looking for answers. If there is someone with a psych background out there, maybe you can share your thoughts on this theory. Are most people just sadistic bastards? Are they simpletons who will refuse to change, even though it means leaving a horrible mess for their own children?
People seem to defend staunchly the notion of survival and their right to enslave animals to the detriment of every living thing on the planet; yet they will defend the rights of a clump of cells in someone’s uterus. That, to me, is insanity. It makes no sense. I’ve tried to see it from others’ points of view, but to date, I feel that I have failed.
On a more happy note, the best approaches I’ve found after nearly thirty years of trial and error seem to be twofold: (1) Being gentle and compassionate in my approach to voicing the truth about animals, while presenting my ideas in a non-threatening way; and (2) Offering viable alternatives that would not require a major change in lifestyle; offering really awesome recipes and not saying “Oh, here’s a ‘VEGAN’ recipe you should try…” It’s more like, “Hey, try this recipe; it’s awesome, delicious, filling, nutritious, and costs very little to make!”
Two quotes that have really resonated and stuck with me (and I’m pretty sure I don’t recall the exact words, but they were something like): “The truth is better received by your conversation partner when draped about the shoulders like a warm cloak, rather than beat about the head like a wet towel.” …and “Veganism happens one meal at a time.”
My boyfriend, who used to eat red meat or fowl with nearly every meal, sees the value of veganism and has cut back to around two meals per week with meat, fish, or cheese in them. He still eats wild game and local meats, raised as happily as possible. I still have issues with this, but he’s a good person, so I don’t bitch at him too much. I give him extra kisses when he eats without killing anything. One meal at a time.
I don’t have all the answers. My own answer is trying to live the way I would want others to live and not turning them off to the truth by being too preachy. My favorite trick is to invite my meat-eating friends over for dinner and to serve them a completely vegan meal that’s delicious and mouth-watering, without bothering to mention that I’m vegetarian or vegan. Sometimes they forget there’s no meat or cheese. Sometimes they don’t realize that the “creamy” texture is nothing more than ground cashews, tofu, nutritional yeast, and a little salt (rather than ricotta). At the end of the meal I mention, casually, that it was all completely vegan. The most common response is a wide-eyed, “Really?? Wow!” I share my recipes; I feel some sense of accomplishment.
Coming from a background of in-your-face activism and plastering the “Animals DIED” on boxes of Tide detergent, I know my approach is a small thing, but it’s something. And it’s working. Word of mouth works.
I have watched over the past twenty years so many other people become vegans. I can’t tell you how happy this makes me. I don’t feel like the weirdest kid in the class anymore. It gives me hope to continue in these footsteps. The surge in veganism and compassion for animals lets me breathe deeply and confidently, knowing that everyone who ever fought me or punished me for being a vegan / vegetarian over the years now sees that many others believe in the same thing. There is also satisfaction in this. Being earth-conscious and vegan is now hip (hep)! I know that it was all worth it.
Thanks for creating this site. Love the acronym: L.O.V.E.
Some of the views seem pretty extreme (and bordering on religious) but I think I concur with most of them. Not sure about the blog entry on exploitation, but maybe I’ll respond to that later.
Thank you for reading my comments. Sorry for any typos. I’m a lazy writer.
Best,
Naiya
about 1 year ago
naiya! Thank you for writing! Your comment, like my blog post, was a lot to take in. I don’t have time to respond to nearly everything, but I have a few quick points.
I’m not sure I agree that the human relationship to nonhuman should be compared to how “god rules His children.” I don’t like the idea of one group being clearly labeled superior to the other. I like to just see us all as equals. Granted, if you have a conception of “god” as an equal with “His children,” then the comparison could work for me. I just think we’re all here together, no hierarchy needed.
Your questions about people’s psychology confused me a little bit. My understanding is that people continue to exploit other animals (and that includes other humans–think of men exploiting women) because of the material and psychological gains they stand to make from it. For a lot of humans, this means the taste of meat, eggs, and dairy. Or it means men being able to coerce (or physically force) sexual acts from women. Or it means a human animal being able to take “cute” pictures of their pet wearing a sweater and sunglasses. The oppressor gains something from exploiting the oppressed. This is how I see it–a very simple model, I think.
About the pro-life advocates who are against animal liberation, I think I can help you understand a little. I don’t agree with them–obviously, since I am FOR animal liberation–but I recently considered the issue of abortion from a new (for me) perspective. I think for many people the issue is based on the body/soul or body/mind distinction. Since a lot of people believe that humans have “souls” and that other animals don’t, and since those people generally value “souls” a lot more than bodies, they consider the killing of animals (who are, to them, just bodies) a small matter and the killing of (soul-carrying) fetuses a very big matter.
I like your focus on non-threatening, peaceful activism–plain conversation can be a very simple and powerful way to create change–but I’m not sure I agree with your methods that tend to play-down the word or concept of veganism. I think it’s important for people to become acquainted with the ideas and philosophy of veganism–not just the dietary changes. I think the ideas of veganism are wonderful and could lead to major sweeping changes across society, freeing all oppressed individuals, not only so-called “food animals.”
I’m glad you’ve found this blog to be stimulating. I wonder which views of ours you find extreme. I don’t consider our views to be “religious”–they are based more on logic and feelings than on anything like inherited views, faith, or traditions–but I’d love to hear your criticisms, whatever they are!
I hope you continue to read and keep thinking about these issues with us. It’s great to be in conversation with you!
peace & love / toward a vegan world!
steven