Posts tagged respect
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.
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”
Giving meaning to veganism
Nov 7th
Vegetarians often have an ambivalent relationship with the animal welfare corporation PETA. In the past, I had reservations about that corporation (e.g., the “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign), yet continued to distribute their literature. And when I did, I had to ignore that unsettling feeling of unwholesomeness, justifying my actions to myself in the name of “practical”ness: “but their stickers/brochures/DVDs are free and people seem to enjoy receiving them (especially the stickers!).” I was unwilling to give up something I wanted — having free materials to distribute — which I would have had to do if I had admitted to myself how much people are hurt by PETA’s campaigns.
This changed when I witnessed the hurtfulness of PETA’s racist “Animal Liberation” campaign firsthand. Directly seeing PETA’s cynical appropriation of a group’s experience of oppression and the tangible harm it did to our community dismantled the wall of self-deception I had fabricated in my mind to separate the “bad” things the corporation does from the purported “good.”
I could no longer ignore reality so I could keep getting what I wanted.
I was no longer willing to be associated with PETA and decided to stop distributing their materials. And when I did, I was freed from the justifications that had kept me from fully acknowledging, even to myself, the harm done to human animals by PETA. And I began to realize that, by distributing their literature, I was not only unwittingly fundraising for, but also tacitly endorsing a corporation that actively seeks out oppressive campaigns.
Fast forward a few years, and I was in a similar position with another animal welfare corporation that was actively unwilling to examine its own racist and sexist attitudes. I continued to distribute their literature, again in the name of expediency (“What else would I hand out if I stopped using these? Everybody says they’re the most effective pamphlets.”)
But finally I started thinking that I wouldn’t support or even be associated with a racist or sexist organization in any other part of my life, so why was I doing that here? Put in those terms, the decision to stop distributing the literature was easy and I was freed from the strain of trying to reconcile a fear of the unknown (“what would I do if I didn’t use this corporation’s lit?”) with not wanting to being complicit with the racism and sexism of the known.
Thinking back, I am embarrassed that it was so difficult for me to stop supporting these corporations, that something as frivolous as brightly colored stickers or the fear of the unknown was more important to me than the oppression of others. But then again, this is the trap of an oppressive system in action. Oppression is always something that can be ignored so long as it is somebody else who is being oppressed: that’s the very nature of privilege.
And so, having experienced the difficulty of disentangling myself from a dysfunctional relationship with animal welfare corporations perpetuating oppressive norms, I was encouraged to read the strong online response to PETA’s hurtful fat shaming campaign. Vegans publicly declared an intention to stop donating to PETA and mobilized to show their opposition.
These responses to a corporation unwilling to examine its role in perpetuating oppression are expressions of veganism. Veganism is revealed through our actions. When we refuse to give money to these corporations; refuse to link to their websites; renounce the perceived benefits of collaborating with them; publicly express our opposition to oppressive corporations and campaigns; and refuse to promote or otherwise support any of their campaigns and investigations until they take genuine action towards eradicating their institutionalized -isms, we give meaning and life to veganism.
The meanings of ‘our’
Jun 18th
Recently, while reading a pamphlet we’ve been developing about circuses, an activist stopped at the line, “Some animals, like elephants, may be forced to work for over 45 years for our entertainment,” and suggested replacing the word ‘our’ with ‘your.’ This comment intrigued me because the word ‘our’ was deliberately chosen to suggest a particular approach to advocacy and so I started thinking more about what that word represents.
‘Our’ reminds me not to think of myself as separate from those I am reaching out to and to instead understand that we are doing the best we know how. With this understanding, veganism is a process rather than an endpoint. Veganism as process means I am continually learning about veganism and that my path towards the vegan ideal is meandering and ongoing. So ‘our’ helps head off the judgment that I am ‘good’ and they are ‘bad’ by reminding me that we are all learning how to live our lives at the same time. ‘Our’ helps me recognize that we all have much to offer each other, and to move away from an adversarial relationship speaking at others and towards a collaborative one speaking with one another.
Because we live in an imperfect, messy world, we necessarily fall short, even if we have the best of intentions. ‘Our’ means admitting and accepting my own imperfection in living veganism and giving up any sense of superiority I feel over others. In the case of the circus, it is an acknowledgment that, as a human, I also participate in the oppression of non-human animals. Even as it recognizes our shared role as oppressors, ‘our’ also acknowledges the ability of each one of us to recognize that role and work to end it.
And so I think the word ‘our’ is powerful and important by bringing a basic sense of connectedness with others to advocacy. Whether it’s called respect, compassion, or just plain kindness, it’s how I wish to relate with others and the foundation for the vegan world I wish to live in.
The audience is everybody
May 29th
If we want a vegan world, then I don’t think it’s effective to limit our audience to certain age groups, racial groups, social classes, political affiliations, or other “demographics.” I want everyone to hear the vegan message.
For some, veganism will be a natural and easy fit. I want those people to hear me, so they can join in and make a difference. For others, veganism will seem radical or impossible. But I want those people to hear me, too. These “others” may in fact be most affected by our perspective. Even if their current lifestyle is the opposite of veganism, they may be on the cusp of a life-changing experience. And if their lifestyle is the opposite of veganism, that might also mean there’s more to gain from their eventual veganism. (Think of an avid hunter who goes vegan and surprises everyone around them; suddenly the whole community is a lot more curious about veganism!) And this all stands in addition to the obvious problem of prejudice (literally prejudging people as “receptive” or “unreceptive” based on factors like gender and race). My proposition is that we can reach out lovingly and respectfully to anyone who is willing to listen.
Of course, this kind of assertion—“the audience is everybody”—begs for some qualification.
Embracing an audience of everybody doesn’t mean I purposely seek out an audience that I feel will be unreceptive. It doesn’t mean I completely forget about prioritization and spend hours talking to people who aren’t even listening to me. And embracing an audience of everybody doesn’t mean that I enter communities as a cultural outsider, declare the righteousness of veganism, and then leave. No, I think this “touring activist” model may well ignore the importance and value of community-based activism and grassroots, person-to-person outreach.
Embracing an audience of everyone doesn’t mean I promote veganism as a single-issue cause, telling individuals and institutions, “I’m fine with your racism and heterosexism; I just want you to stop oppressing nonhumans!” No, it just means I don’t let that existing racism and heterosexism turn into an assumption on my part that those people will “never change.” It simply means I don’t give up on people or shun people. It means I try to stay open to anybody who will consider the vegan ideal. So an audience of everyone doesn’t mean I sacrifice my integrity or my idealism: No, it means I take my idealism to the streets and share it with people—anybody who will listen!