Posts tagged communication
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”
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.