Posts tagged activism
Basing our advocacy on values we actually believe in
Aug 9th
Many animal advocacy groups emphasize being “normal” or “mainstream” in order to reach a bigger audience, even when being “normal” or “mainstream” means participating in exploitation or excluding some groups. There are many examples of this. Some groups say we should eat honey in public so we don’t alienate mainstream (speciesist) audiences. Some groups say we should forget human oppression when we talk about veganism because audiences might reject “a package deal.” Some groups say we should avoid the word “vegan” because the mainstream is not ready for it. In each case, honesty about what we believe is sacrificed in order to appeal to mainstream audiences.
There are times when pandering to the mainstream doesn’t seem very harmful, but I think it still leads us to adopt practices inconsistent with our beliefs. Many groups emphasize the importance of wearing dress clothes when doing outreach, and not having a long beard or tattoos. But if veganism is an inclusive movement, I think the more appropriate message is that it’s okay whatever you look like.
Instead of pretending we believe in some audience’s values, I think we can impress people with vegan values. We can answer their questions, be patient with them, and listen to them. I think this is a more solid foundation than whether or not we have a beard or tattoos. If we are warm and kind, I think we are modeling what we believe in, and our behavior matches our message.
In my experience, it is not common for someone to be honest and respectful like this when talking about a social issue. Usually activists list facts and catch-phrases without really listening to your responses; they are selling something, and they treat you like a poltical unit. Because of this standard, I think it is powerful to listen to someone and talk to them personally about why you are against exploitation. This approach is so different from the way our society usually is—with everyone selling an idea or product—I think it can surprise people.
We don’t need to pretend we are anything we’re not in order to advocate veganism. We don’t need to support mainstream practices like judging people by their clothes, possessions, and external displays of status in order to advocate veganism. We can base our advocacy on values we actually believe in—warmth, honesty, and respect—not conformity or pandering to the mainstream. Thank you very much.
New video available: “You Can Help Stop This”
Aug 2nd
L.O.V.E.’s new video and pamphlet documenting speciesist oppression, “You Can Help Stop This,” is now available at YouCanHelpStopThis.com. Video subtitles are available in Chinese, Dutch, English, and Greek, with more coming soon (please contact us if you’d like to contribute another); pamphlet translations are coming soon. The video can be watched on Youtube and Vimeo, as well, and it can be downloaded from this page. An image for DVD burning will be available soon.
The core difference between “You Can Help Stop This” (YCHST) and other animal advocacy videos is that YCHST repeatedly emphasizes exploitation, whereas “Meet Your Meet,” Earthlings, and other videos focus on specific details of various industries. For this reason, “Meet Your Meat” is not a vegan video but an anti-factory-farming video. While Earthlings addresses many speciesist practices, it makes each argument separately: specific reasons to change our diet, specific reasons to boycott circuses, specific reasons to stop using leather. Comparatively, I think the message in YCHST is coherent, holistic, and clear. The first titled section directly addresses exploitation, the following sections all return to exploitation, and veganism is defined as a principle of non-exploitation. I think this clearly presents speciesism as a system of oppression, and I think it presents veganism as a coherent, effective response to speciesist oppression.
From the beginning of this project, I imagined like-minded vegans using this video in place of other activism clips that, while emotionally powerful, are limited in their presentation of a vegan perspective. If you believe in veganism as a principle of non-exploitation, not just a lifestyle that happens to solve various problems, I encourage you to view this video and share it with people you know, to spread it online and show it in your communities. I feel very satisfied upon completing this video and sharing it with you all; I think it expresses my reasons for “being vegan” more clearly than I ever have before. Thank you very much.
Click here to watch the new video: www.YouCanHelpStopThis.com
Examples of community-based activism
Jun 14th
In spring 2009 I worked at my university’s writing center in one of the student dorms, meeting with walk-in appointments and basic writing students. One of my regular students, K, was interested in some of the same subjects as I was, and at most of our meetings we talked about those things more than K’s writing. K was in a philosophy class, and we talked about ethics, I think, at most meetings.
K was not a practicing vegetarian or vegan, but we sometimes talked about veganism at our meetings, and we had mostly the same thoughts: Who do we “think we are,” as humans? Why is it “murder” to kill another human and “sport” to kill a nonhuman? Why do we think we are “compassionate” to kill “free range” chickens instead of “factory farmed” ones? One time I suggested a documentary about speciesist oppression to K, but I don’t know if he watched it. About 8 weeks into the semester, K stopped coming to the writing center and I didn’t meet with him anymore.
This past spring one of my friends at my university, M, said he was directing a friend of his to me so I could help him go vegetarian. M directed his friend to me because M knew I was involved in veganism and had experience living as a vegan in our town. I found out later that M’s friend was K, and K had decided to eat vegetarian.
I told K which stores in our town had the most options for vegan groceries, and I offered to shop with him. I told him about the natural foods store and the restaurants in our town that have vegan options. I told him about cooking foods like pancakes and mashed potatoes so they are vegan. K said he was grateful and that he might be able to be “completely vegan” sooner than he originally thought.
This experience demonstrated to me the value of talking about veganism with people and “being available” as a vegan. My role with K was mostly passive: I talked about veganism in the context of maybe “philosophical musing” or something, and then later I gave him tips about eating vegan in our town. I didn’t have to be an “activist” really, but “simply” talking about veganism and “being there” as a vegan was helpful to him.
Another example of community-based activism is that recently I added a veganism page to my poetry blog. Having the page on my blog is pretty passive, but it gets almost as many hits as my other pages, and I’ve received multiple comments about veganism from other poets. In the past I was excited about combining poetry and activism to make an “activist poetry.” Now I’ve noticed that “simply” being available as a vegan—publicly mentioning veganism as “the other thing I do”—is already helpful. I think promoting veganism like this is very easy and very valuable.
Thank you for reading this post.
Related posts:
- The value of community-based activism
- Dropping the “activist” label
- Putting it out there
Update on the activism video and related projects
Mar 22nd
Last summer I started working on an activism video to use in place of videos like Earthlings, which many of us have grown to dislike but might still use because there isn’t a great alternative. (I’ll note that I’ve been using slaughterhouse footage from Igualdad Animal in recent months; most of it lacks narration, but it’s powerful footage and readily accessible for online activism.) After I missed my ambitious goal to finish the activism video by September, I let the project go for a while—I felt burnt out, and school demanded my attention. In January I started working regularly on the project again.
So far I’ve basically completed the first part (more than half) of the video, which addresses speciesist oppression. I also compiled a rough ending—which discusses veganism—but I’ve recently decided to rewrite the end. (This also means rerecording some narration.) Besides these tasks, I have a few audio problems to fix. I feel tempted to set another public goal to finish by some date, but after the last time, I’m not sure that’s the most effective approach for me. In any case, I’m excited about this video. Every time I work on it I feel a somber but powerful (and “ultimately” encouraging) feeling that this is important work. I feel like this video is going to do something important.
Besides giving an update on the video, I want to detail some other exciting developments. LOVE member M is now working on a pamphlet to be finished around the same time as the video, based on the same script. This pamphlet should be helpful for mobile-video projection with the new video as well as for leafleting. In addition, we’ve also planned to restructure our website so that it’s based on the organizational distinctions made in the video and pamphlet:
First, the bulk of the site will be categorized along the lines of “Speciesist Oppression” / “Veganism” instead of “Vegan Basics” / “Living Veganism.” This change, grouping all the “veganism” articles into one section, reflects an understanding that any exploration of veganism as anti-oppression will naturally include an interest in advocating veganism to others: “activism” is included in “veganism.” The added space given to speciesist oppression might also mark a movement by several of us toward more emphasis on ‘veganism 101.’ We’ve found that our initial audience—established vegans who want to advocate veganism as anti-oppression—is quite small. 2010, for several of us, seems to suggest a return to focusing on outreach to primarily non-vegans.
Another big change is that the new “Speciesism” section, more thorough but perhaps less detail-oriented than our current pamphlets, will no longer be organized by industry (“Food” / “Circus” / etc.) but instead along the lines of “Exploitation” / “Confinement” / “Forced Labor” / “Ownership” / “Physical Violence” / “Killing” / “Devaluation.” This change, we hope, will bring attention to the practices and factors that repeatedly show up in many forms of oppression, human and nonhuman.
I think this organization is more conducive to a holistic understanding of veganism and to an understanding that all forms of oppression are worth opposing for similar reasons. I think it implies that we usually don’t need different facts or theories for each form of vegan activism (anti-circus, anti-wool, etc.); instead, the broad principle of non-exploitation can simply, consistently be applied to each instance. Often, the same exact phrases or sentences could be said about all forms of oppression. Highlighting this fact might make it more clear, in an intuitive way, why vegans oppose all forms of oppression and why we don’t think that such an opposition is “asking too much.”
might also mark a movement by several of us toward more emphasis on ‘veganism 101.’ We’ve found that our initial audience—established vegans who want to advocate veganism as anti-oppression—to be quite small right now. In addition, I personally feel like my own efforts to “convince” animal welfarists to consider anti-oppression have seemed mostly futile. 2010, for several LOVE members, seems to suggest a return to focusing on outreach to primarily non-vegans.
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.
Political Correctness, Political Expediency, and Veganism
Jan 10th
This is a guest post from Ida. Ida blogs regularly at The Vegan Ideal, a site that “works to cultivate a process by which theory, learning and skills based on veganism as the principle of non-exploitation are put into practice.”
While L.O.V.E. takes an anti-oppression approach based on the vegan ideal of nonexploitation, there are many nonhuman animal activists who fear that as long as veganism takes into account the oppression of human animals, it will take away from opposing cruelty to nonhuman animals. The argument goes as follows: if we advocate against oppression as it targets human animals whilst advocating against oppression as it targets nonhuman animals, then people – having a finite amount of resources – will refuse to oppose the exploitation of nonhuman animals since it would include the “baggage” of being “packaged” with also opposing the exploitation of human animals, something, it is assumed, potential nonhuman animal activists are likely to be disinterested in.
One nonhuman animal activist who professed little interest in the exploitation of human animals or the Earth recently commented on L.O.V.E. saying that he is focusing exclusively “on living opposed to exploitation of the non-human [animal] species,” regardless of the effect it has on humans or the planet. The rationale for this single-mindedness was subsequently presented on another blog.
Such rationalization of ignoring the exploitation of human animals and the planet isn’t unique. In fact, even the use of metaphorical language like “baggage” and “package” to dismiss the issues concerning oppressed groups of humans or the destruction of the planet’s life-sustaining systems is the same language used for the same purpose as that in two separate mandates on how to effectively promoting “veganism.” Furthermore, those two advocacy directives represent the official policy and positions of two U.S. national nonhuman animal advocacy corporations.
Political Expediency
The argument for exclusively concerning ourselves with nonhuman animals rests on doing what is most politically expedient. Expediency is about attaining an end by emphasizing what is convenient and practical in terms of narrow nonhuman animal advocacy goals. And with this comes a strong willingness to ignore when something is oppressive and exploitative in ways outside of our area of concern.
Political expediency privileges those of us who benefit most from the existing social structure at the expense of those of us who are the targets of oppression. For instance, a White, male(-identified), able-bodied, cissexual, heterosexual, upper/middle-class, Christian, citizen can easily afford to be disinterested in how others are the targets of oppression. Yet the same is not true for those of us who are people of color, female(-identified) people, disabled people, trans people, queers, working-class/poor people, non-Christians, and/or a non-citizens who are currently the targets of that oppression.
As Royce notes in a post at Vegans of Color, framing vegan advocacy in this way leads to the erasure of those of us who can’t, don’t, or won’t fit ourselves into the neat little box of White, male(-identified), able-bodied, cissexual, heterosexual, upper/middle-class, Christian, citizen that is taken for granted as the “mainstream.” As such, the very acknowledgment of issues concerning people of color, female(-identified) people, disabled people, trans people, queers, working-class/poor people, non-Christians, and/or a non-citizens is seen as competing with vegan advocacy.
I find it hard to see how exactly such an advocacy framework actually liberates nonhuman animals – although, I do see how it obviously benefits the most privileged of humans. Of course when we focus exclusively on narrow nonhuman animal advocacy aims, the argument for expediency is persuasive simply because we aren’t concerned with how it affects others.
Basically, what we end up with is an unacknowledged endorsement of the continued exploitation of other humans and the planet’s systems. That is to say, we end up advocating for a political positions and policies that are strongly pro-exploitation and thus pro-oppression.
While claiming to be in defense of what is most efficacious, I believe these statements on advocacy can better be understood as a backlash (or counter response) to advocacy that seeks to be more inclusive and just overall. As such, advocacy based on political efficacy is a form of counter-advocacy. That is, it becomes less about promoting the liberation of nonhuman animals than a reactionary response to advocacy that seeks transformational social and political change.
Political Correctness
In many ways, political expediency is a reaction and rejection of political correctness. Correctness is concerned with exactly that which expediency is least concerned about – that is, what is exploitative and oppressive in any way.
Unfortunately, while it is a deeply positive concept, political correctness has been co-opted as part of a reactionary counter-advocacy against social transformation. Pundits like Rush Limbaugh sought to associate being “political correct” with something bad at the same time they coined terms like “feminazi” and “ecoterrorist.” The advocacy of policies and positions that discourage us from taking into account the oppression of other humans and the destruction of our planet fit within this larger pattern of conservative backlash.
I think a great distinction between political expediency and political correctness is offered in the Combahee River Collective’s “A Black Feminist Statement”:
In the practice of our politics we do not believe that the ends always justify the means. Many reactionary and destructive acts have been done in the name of achieving “correct” political goals. As feminists we do not want to mess over people in the name of politics. We believe in collective process.
While I don’t want to speak for the collective, I think political correctness is reflected in the work of L.O.V.E. As Jenna said in her response to comment mentioned above, “Personally, if I don’t have the capacity to be directly involved in the different anti-oppression struggles around the world, I at least strive to be respectful of them.”
While political expediency assumes addressing multiple forms of oppression would result in a competition of oppressions, politically correctness recognizes how expediency itself needlessly constructs oppressions as competing. Instead, political correctness involves an understanding of how addressing multiple forms of oppression is in reality complementary.
Just as political expediency isn’t exactly new, the same is true for political correctness. In fact, political correctness was present during the founding of the vegan movement in the mid-1940s. The following is from a statement of the movement’s founding members:
The Vegan Society seeks to abolish man’s dependence on animals, with its inevitable cruelty and slaughter, and to create instead a more reasonable and humane order of society. Whilst honouring the efforts of all who are striving to achieve the emancipation of man and of animals, The Vegan Society suggests that the results must remain limited so long as the exploitation in food and clothing production is ignored.
Obviously the originators of the vegan movement explicitly framed the emancipation of human and nonhuman animals as a complementary necessity – failure to account for and respect all anti-oppression struggles is understood as being limited and unacceptable. It’s in this spirit of political correctness – of respect for others’ oppression – that veganism was envisioned and to which political expediency becomes a form of counter-advocacy.
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.
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.