Posts tagged privilege
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.
Just a bunch of normals
Apr 7th
I recently ran across the following on a blog by a well-known vegetarian author promoting a vegetarian diet book:
Rip Esselstyn of Engine 2 Diet fame just sent me this. It’s a six minute video from an Engine 2 potluck. No freaks anywhere. Just a bunch of normals enthusiastically showing off their recipes, telling us their success stories, and letting us glimpse an incredible diversity of healthful vegan food.
Before continuing, please take a moment to watch this promotional video for the diet book. Notice anything?
More >
Anti-Oppression and Animal Rights
Jan 18th
How is anti-oppression different from animal rights? During the discussion of Steven’s post On Suffering and “Unnecessary Harm”, chernavsky wrote:
As far as I can tell, the philosophy promoted on this site is entirely compatible with the views of Gary Francione — and I’m actually surprised that he’s not mentioned anywhere. Here’s an excerpt from a lecture he gave:
“The foundational premise of the abolitionist perspective is veganism. As far as I’m concerned, veganism is the single most important form of social activism that anybody can engage in. And it’s not a lifestyle thing. It has to do with a commitment to non-violence, and it has to do with a commitment to the respect for persons, whether they are human persons or non-human persons.”
http://www.gary-francione.com/francione-rochester-lecture.html
I think there is an important distinction. Since this diverges somewhat from Steven’s original topic and because this may be of general interest, I thought I’d respond in this new thread. These comments are, for the most part, not specific to Francione’s formulation and also apply to the difference between anti-oppression and animal welfare.
An understanding of power (and the resulting privilege), which I think is central to the anti-oppression view of veganism, is something I have not seen in animal rights (or animal welfare) formulations. Stephen noted this as well. I know for myself I’ve had difficulty writing about power, so perhaps Francione’s view seems similar because we haven’t explained this point clearly enough.
My experience is that recognizing power comes naturally to oppressed groups. In the realm of confronting racism, people of color very often speak directly about power and privilege. I don’t think this is an accident. When one is in the oppressed group, I think it’s obvious that power imbalance is a huge problem. For those in the role of oppressor (as I am, among other ways, as a male), it may be more difficult to recognize: because I am in the power position, I don’t receive any push-back when exercising that power. Because privilege is so often invisible to the oppressor, if I don’t explicitly think in terms of power and privilege, I very likely will remain unaware of the true grip of sexism over my thoughts and actions and therefore be unable to disengage myself from participating in and perpetuating that system.
Similarly, when confronting speciesism, I am in the role of oppressor as a human animal with human animal privilege that is often invisible to me. By thinking directly in terms of power and privilege, I can start to disentangle myself from the sway of speciesist oppression, which necessarily also means working to end the broader systems supporting that oppression.
The anti-oppression view of veganism encompases both animal and human animal oppression. Power and privilege provide a common basis for understanding each of these oppressions. For many people, including myself, experience with multiple forms of oppression reveals patterns of interaction and behavior, all centered around power difference and privilege, common to all forms of oppression. For myself, it is difficult to speak in detail about any form of oppression without referring to power.
As a practical matter, I’m not sure how the abolition of animal use can be effected without addressing the issue of our power over animals. I imagine one might be able to say property status (a la Francione) is a way of exercising power over another, but that seems a step removed to me and therefore obscuring what seems to me to be the main point.
Acknowledging Privilege
Jan 17th
Conversations about privilege can be volatile. I feel an immediate contraction upon having my privilege called out. When Miranda points out a sexist statement or action I made, my reaction is to cover up my embarrassment by lashing out with anger “I’m not sexist! How dare you!”
This is an understandable reaction (right, Miranda?). After all, I don’t think sexism is okay and I don’t want to think that I participate in sexism. Basically, I’m embarrassed! But what I do is transfer my anger and make it the fault of the messenger. This is not very helpful. So one of my personal challenges is to move past the embarrassment and to listen to what Miranda is telling me about my actions.
I know when Miranda speaks with me about my privilege, she is not doing so to say that I am a “bad person,” but to let me know what I said hurt her so we can look at it together. Can I receive her feedback, not as a personal attack, but as one about my actions? At the same time, can I accept responsibility for my statements and actions and the harm they cause? And from there, what can I learn about myself and can this lead to personal growth and a deeper understanding of the issues?
Practicing communication with Miranda in this way helps me in the conversations we’re having at L.O.V.E. about speciesism. One challenge in speaking about speciesism is that we are speaking about ourselves. That is, each one of us holds speciesist views and human privilege. It’s inevitable given that we have grown up in and continue to live as humans in a human dominated world.
So for me, when we speak about speciesism, there is always the specter of that moment of contraction as I realize, “Whoa! You’re (or even I’m!) talking about me!” At that moment, my challenge is to not personalize the statement and to try to discern the content of the message to better understand my own human privilege and the larger society it emerges from.
I think this is an important role of being an ally to non-human animals. After all, it is only after recognizing and acknowledging my own speciesism that I can begin the work to end it in my own life and in the world.
the permeation of privilege
Dec 27th
The appeal of western holidays has long since worn off for me; I make it a point to avoid anything resembling a traditional celebration of Thanksgiving and Christmas because, in recent years, the consumeristic, privileged, exploitative aspects of the holidays have far outweighed the joy of being around a table with friends and family. I usually visit vegan friends during the holidays or use the time off from work to make art, take walks, or do other things that get neglected during the daily grind.
I thought that by spending this year-end with a posse of vegan friends, I would avoid the discomfort that often accompanies a gathering of my family members, whose unchecked privilege tends to permeate the discussions and the activities of a holiday weekend; as many of you can attest, it can be exhausting to face the continuous onslaught of questions and accusations that characterizes our time with non-vegans. However, I found myself feeling very alone in a room full of people whom I would have considered allies. It’s shocking, once you start peeling away the layers of privilege and committing to a fight against all forms of oppression, how much privilege actually affects our lives.
We were being shown a slideshow of a vegetarian couple’s recent trip to a Latin American country. In it were photos of “exotic” locals doing such “photo-worthy” things as removing the chaff of some beans by pouring them from bowl to bowl; selling artisan handcrafts in an open-air market; mixing cement by pouring it into a hole in the ground (“they don’t even have cement mixers!”). I appeared to be the only one in the room who was horrified by the notion of people from North America and Europe moving to these Latin countries and building mansions in the countryside for pennies. It shocked no one else to see locals hired for dollars a day to build these “eco-friendly, sustainable” mansions while the town in which the mansions were located didn’t have enough money in them to make a level bridge that had railings. None of the vegans in the room seemed concerned that materials were being carried up the hill to the building site by donkeys and burros — and some of these homes were being built for “animal rights activists.”
While I do grow tired of being the buzzkill in the room, I couldn’t help but wonder aloud how ethical it was for wealthy, white, supposedly compassionate people to move to an impoverished village in Latin America to gawk and marvel at the folks who have lived there for hundreds of years. Maybe I lack understanding of the global economy, and maybe it can be argued that these American dollars will do wonders for the development of these nations — but it just seemed to me like privilege was being paraded around unnecessarily. By vegans, nonetheless.
Until we change the rhetoric of the ”animal rights” message and begin to challenge all types of exploitation — and all systems of power and privilege — we will never create lasting change. Until we embrace a definition of veganism that goes beyond a label on a box of veggie burgers, there will never be liberation. And until we acknowledge the permeation of privilege into all of the work we do, we will never be able to create a just world.
Confessions of a Speciesist
Dec 24th
I love the new MySpace page that Steven created. Not only is it a great way to reach many people with the anti-oppression view of veganism, it broadens the coverage of issues from our pamphlet, which more narrowly focuses on animals used for food.
In my former life as a person basing my veganism on reducing the suffering of animals, I took a peculiar pride in focusing solely on animals used for food. I had heard (and used) the argument many times before: upwards of 95% of animals used by human animals are exploited by animal agriculture. I felt those who worked on other issues, including circuses, rodeos, pets, fur and vivisection, were using their energies unwisely.
Now I recognize this argument as speciesist. As a human animal, I have the luxury of deciding whose life I deem to be important. Because I am not the elephant at the zoo, I can say (implicitly or explicitly) that the elephant’s life is less important than the life of the chicken in the broiler house. I am horrified that I ever made such a callous judgment and now understand both individuals are equally important.
Even now, when doing public outreach, I show footage of animals used for food. In doing so, I wield my human animal privilege by making a deliberate choice not to show footage of other uses of animals. At each moment, I try to make choices as best I can given my various limitations of time, energy and other factors. That may mean making a choice, enabled by privilege, that I later find unacceptable. As an example, I made a deliberate decision not to mention human animal issues in LOVE’s vegan pamphlet, even in the section speaking about a vegan diet, choosing instead to focus on speciesist oppression. That I felt there was a choice is my privilege in action.
I have been experiencing a shift in my personal thinking about activism. This weekend, a fellow vegan spoke with me about a local retirement community’s plans to shoot 50 acorn woodpeckers, some of whom may be boring into the buildings. In the past, I would have thought such concern for the woodpeckers to be insignificant compared to the billions of animals killed each year for food. Now I finally understand the speciesist privilege in that thinking and know every one of those lives is important. Now I finally understand that all the different ways human animals oppose the use of animals — all of it is vital work – not only as opportunities for education about the various manifestations of speciesist oppression, but also in their own right as protests against injustice.
With the MySpace page, Steven has started to detail other examples of speciesist oppression. We’ve been wanting to bring this into our pamphlet for some time, but have not been able to find time to do so. Hopefully in the future we’ll be able to expand on some of that great text on the MySpace page in the pamphlet and have something to offer that helps bring down another speciesist barrier.
Hierarchy, privilege, and companion animals
Dec 9th
This question came into our COMMUNITY mailing list this morning, and we have moved it to the blog to open it up for discussion. Please post your comments and thoughts!
Hi there:
I’m Annie. I’m not sure how many people are registered to this list, since I think the website just went up. I met Miranda through Vegan Outreach and did some leafletting with her at Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo. I have so many questions about animal rights, since I’m pretty new to this. I hope it’s okay to use this email community for that. I thought it would be a great place for me to ask questions relating to AR and outreach (in particular, dealing with people’s questions). As it sounds like the creators of this website are well aware of, there are so many different viewpoints within this “one” movement, if you can even call it that (as with any social justice movement), and it gets pretty confusing sometimes. I know what I feel in my heart, but
there are a lot of ‘gray’ areas when it comes to reality and rationality. I suppose I’m always thinking about how I can justify my beliefs or actions because I assume people will always question them (and attack them, unfortunately) . . . it’s like a pre-emptive defense of my point of view.
So here are my questions:
1. I do believe very strongly in the idea that the relationship between humans and other-than-human animals is based on hierarchy, power differentials and oppression. I always ask myself, “How is it possible that we can treat animals in such unfathomably horrific ways?” and I often the only answer I can find is “because we can, because we can get away with it, and as history has shown, if we CAN exploit something, we WILL, for the most part.” Exploitation and abuse of power are a part of human history, but so are compassion and ethical evolution. So anyways, the point is that I get that – the oppression idea – and believe in full animal liberation. I’ve heard the argument that it is ‘unnatural’ for animals to be fully liberated
from their human ’superiors,’ and that like most other species, we too have always ‘used’ other species for our own needs. The first thing I think of is that humanity is in no way bound to the so-called ‘laws of
nature,’ or by our ancestral beginnings. We have also exploited and enslaved each other for thousands of years, and that is not ethically accepted. And IF we have the means to live compassionate, cruelty free lives, why wouldn’t we? Does anyone else have any input on this? I suppose I should read the book (“The Dreaded Comparison”). But I’m just curious what anyone has found in conversations about these issues with other activists and non-vegans alike.
2. So what about pets? I feel guilty about having my cat and dog (don’t worry, I know, I am their guardian not their owner, and if anyone owns anyone, they own me, as I’m excessively devoted to them). Anyways, I adopted my cat from a dumpster and my dog from a Navajo reservation in Arizona where the people (oppressed) do not have enough resources for themselves let alone the many stray, starving cats and dogs there). My dog has so many health problems, probably from the poor nutrition as a puppy and the genetic problems (there’s a lot of uranium and radiation there from the mining that has totally destroyed the environment and the ability of the Navajo people who remain out in the desert to sustain themselves), that sometimes I think he very likely would’ve died if he’d been left out there. I also am thinking about adopting another dog from the shelter, because if there’s anything that would make my dog happy, it would be to live with one of his own kind (I think, I guess I shouldn’t assume that, but it’s pretty obvious). I would NEVER ‘buy’ a dog from a breeder or puppy mill. I will always support spaying and neutering and adoption though, I think. We ‘enslaved’ and domesticated these animals, we can’t exactly just leave them to die in shelters or on the street (right?).
So I guess I’ve answered that question, but it still really confuses me and weighs on my conscience. I have complete control over them. My dog can’t do anything (like go out, or eat) unless I help him with it. I do the best I can to give him a great life and take him out all the time, but I still feel bad.
The other thing about pets, is, of course, the FOOD! At the animal rights conference in DC, there was a discussion about our ‘animal companions,’ and some people were saying that we animal rights people shouldn’t bare the burden of adopting all of society’s ‘throw-away’ animals because they eat meat. He was saying ‘why would you ever invite a carnivore or omnivore into your house and feed them meat?” Yeah, obviously, with people . . . I’m not gonna have family over and cook them up a ham, but when it comes to my pets (especially my cat), I just don’t know. They’re already in my life since long before I became vegan. I’ve heard that dogs can do pretty well on vegan diets, but I’ve heard that cats can get really sick without any meat. Does anyone have any input about that.
I’m sorry if this isn’t the intention of this email list. I just thought it would be cool to discuss some of the most ‘controversial’ issues and arguments that come up inside and outside of this movement.
I have SO much to learn.
Annie