Posts tagged effectiveness
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.
Setting short-term, concrete goals
Jun 12th
When our ultimate goal as vegans is as big as “achieve a vegan world,” we can sometimes be confused about where to begin. We know where we want to go, but we have so many different tasks that we can work on—so many people to persuade, so many places to spread the word, so many practices to help change. Even after we decide which pathways seem more “effective,” we still might be confused about what to do with today, here and now. This is why I want to emphasize short-term, concrete goals: They focus our effort on actions we can take today. By setting smaller, measurable goals for this week, this month, or this year, we can more effectively move toward the bigger goal of a vegan world.
Short-term goals can also encourage us along the way. By repeatedly reaching our short-term goals, we can stay empowered, energetic, and hopeful. In contrast, if we only think about the final goal, achieving a vegan world, we may feel we’ve made little or no progress, and we may get discouraged. So I think making smaller, measurable goals is a practical way for us to keep moving in the direction we want to go.
Now I’d like to outline my own goal for this summer. I want to share this goal both to benefit the readers of this post (for demonstration and for inspiration) and to hold myself publicly accountable to this goal. I’ve broken it into three sub-goals to make it more manageable.
—————————————————————
Goal: Create an anti-oppression vegan video clip to be used for online activism and, possibly, mobile video projection.
Finish by: August 31, 2009
Purpose:
(1) To increase the effectiveness of vegan activism by providing a resource that combines the impact of video with a clear anti-speciesist message and follow-up actions.
(2) To demonstrate to the vegan community the power and relevance of an anti-oppression view when doing public outreach.
Sub-goal 1: Finish a rough script for the video.
Finish by: June 30, 2009
Sub-goal 2: Select all videos and images for each section.
Finish by: July 31, 2009
Sub-goal 3: Assemble and edit footage, record narration, add closed captioning.
Finish by: August 31, 2009
Budget: $0
To stay accountable, I will post updates—at each “finish” date—as comments on this thread. I’ll also note my progress in my L.O.V.E. Myspace updates, which I send monthly to our mailing list.
—————————————————————
As you can probably imagine, I’m very excited about this project! By making it a clearly (and publicly) stated goal, I hope to ensure that it’s a success.
I encourage others to comment on this post describing their own short-term projects. What are you or your local group working on? This kind of discussion might help spread ideas, provide inspiration, and make us all more publicly accountable in working toward our goals.
New information or new perspective?
Apr 13th
Lately I’ve been reviewing slaughterhouse investigations and other footage in order to compile an anti-oppression, anti-speciesist video clip for online activism. Much of the footage I’ve reviewed has come from animal welfare organizations, and most of it has included narration from those groups. In reviewing these videos, I’ve noticed a big difference between the approach to narration in those videos and the approach I plan to use.
In these videos, the general method is to “expose” specific practices on factory farms, fur farms, puppy mills, and other such places. Facts and figures are inevitably involved, and credible sources are required to prove that this is really what happens to other animals. Along with the intended purpose of creating awareness of specific cruel practices, I think the effect of this approach is to reinforce the idea that, if the specific practices weren’t so cruel, then confining and killing other animals would still be O.K.
One short video advertisement was over-dubbed with the song “Old McDonald Had a Farm” and showed factory farming footage. The message, of course, is that most animal foods don’t actually come from family farms like “Old McDonald’s”—they come from farms that confine and kill other animals in much more brutal ways. This specific move is common among animal welfare groups. Peta2 prints a pamphlet titled “What They Never Told You” that starts with the same declaration: “This is Not Old McDonald’s Farm. The meat, eggs, and dairy products that you consume no longer come from the small family farms that you see in children’s books.” These arguments criticize factory farms, yes, but only at the cost of reinforcing the idea that it’s harmless to eat meat, eggs, and dairy from smaller, family-owned farms.
If we want to end speciesism and animal exploitation everywhere—not just the most cruel instances of it—then I don’t think a focus on exposing specific cruelties is effective. Due to the excessive emphasis on specific details, there ends up being nothing said about the underlying problem of use without consent (which exists with or without the specific practices). When we focus on “exposing” all the specific details of factory farming, I think we end up telling the public that what they already know about meat—that other animals are killed in order to produce it—is not worth opposing in itself.
I propose an alternative: When using footage or images of specific speciesist practices, we can couple it with text and narration that question people’s whole worldviews, not just their stance on a single product. Instead of getting into so much detail about a specific practice—“Did you know that chickens on factory farms are bred to grow so fast that…?”—we can ask people to reconsider what they already know: “Have you ever thought about how human animals kill other animals—take away their lives—just because we like the taste of their bodies?”
If our goal is to challenge speciesism, then any specific details we present aren’t the main point. The main point is to bring people to face what they already know—that other animals are killed in order to produce meat—and make them look at it closer, see it for what it really is, really confront it and examine it.
If we can make people question oppression this directly, then we are actively working to disrupt the ideology of speciesism—the ideas ingrained in us by traditions, media, and social norms that make us think it’s normal or reasonable for humans to confine and kill other animals.
When we disrupt the ideology of speciesism like this, we’re not only affecting the other animals that new vegans save with their plant-based diets—we’re putting whole worldviews into circulation. We’re giving people the realizations necessary for them to start questioning every speciesist practice they encounter from there forward. We’re actively laying a foundation for the vegan world we want to create.
The importance of criticism
Mar 5th
Recently, some members raised questions about the role of criticism in vegan activism. I believe continual critical reflection is necessary to build a strong foundation for our beliefs and to improve the effectiveness of our actions.
Critically examining our ideas
If we don’t critically examine our ideas, we will not be responsive to new experiences that contradict our old ideas. We can choose to cling desperately to our ideas even as evidence to the contrary mounts, or we can choose to accept the uncertainty of not knowing and learn from our new experiences.
As I have written about previously, it was precisely the constant challenge of a skeptical public that forced me to understand the insufficiency of suffering as a basis for veganism. Accepting the reality of the repeated failure of my arguments allowed me to ask, “Why aren’t people convinced by the argument? Why can’t I refute their logic? Is there a problem with my logic?” This inquiry helped deepen my understanding of veganism and helped me become a more effective, confident advocate in the process.
My experience showed me that even if we don’t question our beliefs, the public certainly will and they will focus on the weaknesses in our ideas. We may as well proactively address them ourselves before the public forces us to.
Critically examining our actions
If we don’t critically examine our actions, we won’t have any basis for evaluating whether or not our efforts are effective in helping us reach our goals. If we instead rely on guesswork and wishful thinking, it’s easy for us to fool ourselves into believing we are effective when, in fact, we are not. Rather than mistake hard work for progress, we can choose to think honestly about what we do and become more effective advocates by learning from this process.
As an example, the animal welfare corporation I used to work for promotes leafleting as the single most effective action we can take as individuals to inspire people to switch to plant-based diets. They claim that 2.5% of people who receive their booklets will switch to a vegetarian diet. However, critical thinking allows us to look at the actual results of leafleting with their literature (e.g., out of 6,000 people who received booklets at one concert, only one wrote in requesting a vegetarian starter guide) and ask the questions, “Is leafleting really as effective as I was told? Could we do a better job in tracking our total impact? How might leafleting be made more effective? What are the weaknesses to leafleting? When is leafleting effective? When is it not? Are there other forms of activism that may be more effective? Why would this corporation offer an obviously incorrect claim on their web site?”
Facing our fears
My experience of being challenged on anti-suffering veganism was unpleasant. Not only was the atmosphere contentious, but there was the added fear that maybe I was wrong all this time and that all the work I had been doing and sacrifices I had made would not yield the progress I had thought they would.
Having experienced this fear, I understand why the leadership of the animal welfare movement is so scared of challenges. The fear is so strong that they instinctively reject any criticism and often react by personally attacking those bringing up concerns as a way to avoid addressing the criticism. While understandable, this is unfortunate, as it results in an insular community that values the false comfort of self-deception over the continued critical analysis necessary for effective advocacy.
Criticism is valuable because it offers us the choice to face the fears that we might not choose to face on our own. If we opt to consider the criticism, we have the opportunity to test and refine our understanding and thereby develop a stronger, more confident, deeper understanding of the issues. It helps us pierce the bubble of complacency that forms when we listen only to opinions that match our own. And it helps us move from a reactive doing that may be satisfying but not necessarily effective to a thoughtful, considered action more likely to advance our goals.
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.