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.
about 4 months ago
Please tell me specifically what about Meet Your Meat is “perpetuating oppression”?
about 3 months ago
Hello, Elaine! I’m not sure where you’re reading in the post that MYM is perpetuating oppression* (the words you quote aren’t even in the post!) and in any case I think it’s besides the point. PETA repeatedly and deliberately engages in campaigns that harm people. This is not exactly news and the least I can do is to not support a corporation that hurts people.
* But since you asked: It’s true that Meet Your Meat only addresses the treatment of non-human animals used by humans and does not question the use of unconsenting beings. While MYM does not perpetuate oppression in an explicit way, by not questioning the exploitive system, the line of reasoning used in MYM falls victim to speciesist ideology that considers it a given the right of humans to use non-human animals.
about 3 months ago
Is it your argument that PETA’s use of images from slavery, the holocaust, genocide, and world hunger is racist because they are using these images, and thus “appropriating” the suffering of others, for a different end: to promote animal rights? That doesn’t follow, logically, and as a matter of ethics, the position should be reconsidered.
Consider an organization who uses images of the slave trade to challenge people in such a way as to awake them to the suffering experienced by a group of humans in South America; for the end of provoking action. The use of these images certainly doesn’t justify the slave trade. Indeed, its moral badness is the motive-force-premise. It also doesn’t imply a normative assessment of comparable harms: this is worse than that. Again, the “appropriation,” if you will, is done with the intention of illuminating an example of suffering by reference to another example of suffering that happens to be in our consciousness.
I think consequentially, if showing images of the slave trade promoted activism to alleviate the plight of other beings, your argument is deeply unethical. And deontologically it is almost hegemonic, in an essentialist way: my suffering is of a different kind, worse even, and therefore even if it can be used in such a way as to end other suffering, it is wrong to do so.
about 3 months ago
Hello Alex, I’m glad you brought this up: the position you’re expressing is a common one used to defend PETA. Because you expressed it so well, I think it’s clear the experiences of others are considered by PETA as yet one more tool to be used in the furtherance of their corporate goals. So, yes, this is appropriation.
PETA as a corporation is ignorant about issues of racist oppression: how else to explain their campaign earlier this year where they dressed up as the KKK (self-described as “hilarious”)? Since they have made it clear time and again that they are not concerned with racist oppression, it’s deeply offensive for them to be taking people’s experience of racist oppression and using it for the corporation’s own ends. It is yet one more way to exploit people of color.
Experiences of racist oppression are not abstract, to be valued only when a corporation can get something out of them. They are the painful, lived experiences of real people.
about 3 months ago
Victor,
You didn’t really respond to my question. Suppose the NAACP “appropriated” the oppression of some other ethnic minority for the end of illuminating racism and advocating against its horrible manifestations. Would the NAACP be doing something wrong? If yes, that seems deeply immoral to me on both consequential and deontological grounds. I asked this same question to a representative of the Anti-Defamation League and they couldn’t respond. If we could use the Holocaust to advocate against genocide in Africa, why would that be wrong? The Anti-Defamation League assumes that human suffering and death is worse; therefore, for the end of ending nonhuman animal oppression, the “appropriation” is wrong. But in my example, it’s okay. Which means they aren’t making a principled point. Are you?
You make a comfortable, albeit irrational, distinction, however, to justify this: PETA does this for a “corporations ends,” whereas in my example, the end would be to address oppression. PETA, like the organization in my hypothetical, is “appropriating” oppressions for the end of ending the thing-status of nonhuman animals.
about 3 months ago
Victor, have you read Breeze Harper’s take on PETA’s Animal Liberation Project?: http://web.mac.com/sistahvegan98/iWeb/research/Sistah_Vegan_Book_Project.html
For anyone wishing to view the 2005 version referenced by Harper in the essay above, visit: http://web.archive.org/web/20050710023410/http://www.peta.org/animalliberation/
I know you don’t oppose making the comparison between human slavery and the enslavement of other animals, as LOVE recommendeds reading Marjorie Spiegel’s /The Dreaded Comparison/. Is your criticism of PETA’s Animal Liberation Project due to PETA’s presentation of the issues or is it based on the fact that it comes from PETA, an organization generally not focused on intersectionality of oppression? Or is it something else?