Posts tagged honesty
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
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.
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.
Sustainable animal agriculture and ethical vegetarianism
Aug 28th
The sustainable dairy, egg and meat trend presents an interesting moment for animal advocates, as it brings to the fore the limitations of the anti-suffering, anti-cruelty rhetoric of animal welfare organizations. Read any vegetarian starter kit or eat-less-meat booklet from one of these groups and you’ll find they are treatises against factory farming (animals suffer in factory farms; factory farms hurt the environment). Many take great pains to state clearly that they’re talking specifically about factory farms, and not about other farms that breed, raise and kill non-human animals.
Sustainable animal agriculture neatly sidesteps all animal welfare concerns. This is why, for the public, it offers an attractive alternative to factory farms. When I worked for an animal welfare corporation handing out their anti-factory farming literature, people all the time would say to me, “That’s why I don’t buy animal products from factory farms! I buy local, organic, free range!” The arguments against factory farming have no relevance to sustainable animal agriculture (if anything, they support it!).
Peter Singer, around whose philosophy all the modern animal welfare corporations are based, was clear from the start that his anti-suffering philosophy only prohibits eating products from animals in factory farms. In Animal “Liberation”, Singer writes “So we must ask ourselves, not: Is it ever right to eat meat? But: Is it right to eat this meat?” (Second Edition, p 160). In a recent book, The Way We Eat, he tells readers where to buy sustainably and humanely raised animal products. Two of many examples:
- “[A]void animal products that come from factory farms. … Information about farms that do not use factory methods is available … at www.eatwellguide. org [the web site’s tagline: local, sustainable, organic], and from … www.eatwild.com [tagline: the #1 site for grass-fed food and facts].” (p. 287)
- “If you eat marine animals, choose species that come from sustainable fisheries … www.thefishlist.org” (p. 288, in the ‘Sustainable Fish’ section)
It’s an odd quirk of history that Singer’s anti-suffering ideas, which explicitly endorse consuming animal products, have been used as the ethical argument for vegetarianism. It is this tension that is exposed by sustainable animal agriculture.
As vegetarian advocates, I think sustainable animal agriculture offers us a great opportunity to examine our message and our ideas. When speaking with the public about vegetarianism, do their questions reveal problems with the message we are presenting? If so, rather than ignoring those problems, I suggest reconsidering the ideas underlying our message. In my own case, it was speaking with a skeptical public that led me to realize that my own ethical vegetarianism was grounded in the vegan ideal of non-exploitation, and not in the anti-suffering arguments promoted by animal welfare corporations. Of course, your reasons for vegetarianism may be different from mine. Regardless of what those reason are, by continually and honestly examining our personal reasons for being vegetarianism, we strengthen our understanding of our beliefs and become more articulate, confident and effective advocates.
The importance of public criticism
Mar 17th
In the previous blog post, I mentioned an animal welfare corporation’s claim that 2.5% of the people receiving their literature will switch to a plant-based diet. They have been making this claim for years despite the actual data showing this estimate to be at least one (and possibly two) orders of magnitude too large. Today, less than two weeks after the blog was posted, the claim has been removed from the corporation’s web site. The change was made sometime during this past week, and given the timing, it’s obvious to me the claim was removed as a reaction to the publication of the numbers on this site.
Although that post was not specifically about that corporation and therefore didn’t mention them by name, their reaction to the blog post shows how important it is to make criticism public. Back in 2006, when I first asked them privately about the discrepancy between the numbers, I was offered a non-answer. Now, under public scrutiny, they made no such attempt to defend the numbers and instead quietly removed the misleading claim within two weeks.
I have been advised in the past to bring up my criticisms privately to the animal welfare corporations; yet these experiences are one clear example of how that advice primarily serves to bury criticism rather than support positive change.
As I mentioned in the last post, when faced with criticism, the leadership of the animal welfare corporations often reacts reflexively by covering up the obvious symptoms of the problem being criticized while leaving unexamined and unaddressed the deeper issues involved. Leaving the underlying causes in place offers, at best, a brief reprieve until the next symptom appears. I believe it’s better to directly and honestly face what ails us, own our mistakes, work to fix them, and move on, wiser for the experience.
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.
Speaking your truth
Dec 16th
One of LOVE’s core values is honest communication and part of honest communication is honesty in advocacy. I believe honest advocacy means more than being factually correct; it means telling your truth. Fellow LOVE member J. beautifully illustrates this distinction in an email they sent yesterday about a presentation they are preparing on veganism. They write:
“Originally, I thought I’d say that by adopting a vegan diet, you can help animals, help the environment, and help your own body. However, I now feel that I want to tell the truth, about why I promote veganism. The fact is, even if farm animals were treated very well, and animal agribusiness wasn’t harmful to the environment, and animal products were good for human health, I still think it’s wrong to use animals, without their consent. And since animals can’t give their consent, then it’s just plain wrong to use animals.”
Animal welfare organizations offer many reasons to go vegetarian, but I’ve never heard a single one actually advocate telling our own personal truths. Some ostensibly support truth telling, if only for its efficacy (“honest advocacy is powerful advocacy”), but when some of us who helped start LOVE spoke our truth during and about our vegan advocacy efforts, the animal welfare oligarchy stepped in to try to shut us down.
Until relatively recently, I never asked myself, “Why am I vegan?” nor was I ever encouraged to do so. Because of that, I approached animal advocacy the way I was taught: I memorized a handful of reasons why somebody might choose a plant-based diet and, when I met a potential vegan, I would throw at them the argument I thought they would respond best to. If that didn’t stick, I’d move down the list and throw each successive argument at them until I ran through the list.
The whole time, I felt that overpowering crying-out inside me as promoting somebody else’s agenda repeatedly led to conclusions I found unacceptable: condoning “humane” dairy, eggs and meat; eating less meat as an end goal; condoning hunting and fishing. Many activists I’ve spoken with have shared with me how they felt that same terrible, confusing feeling.
Years later, when I came out of the daze and actually stopped to think about why I was vegan, I realized it wasn’t for all those reasons other people had told me. And it was at that moment of stopping that I started to understand my truth about veganism.
It’s my belief that the way we engage in activism reflects our values. By striving to communicate honestly, directly, and clearly both facts and my intentions, I have experienced a shift in the quality of my activism from a frantic selling of veganism by any means necessary to others to one of engaging in dialogue with others. In so doing, I believe I have begun to restore my integrity and bring the respect I feel inside for others to my activism. So I encourage you, if you’ve never done so before, to ask yourself why you are vegan and I encourage you to speak your truth with others. Because honest advocacy is respectful advocacy.