Posts tagged values
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.
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.
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.
Holistic veganism
Oct 20th
As a vegan, I’m interested in more than patterns of consumption. I’m interested in dissolving speciesist attitudes, spreading an anti-oppression worldview, & ensuring respect for all. I oppose human oppression as much as nonhuman oppression. I value honesty, respect, & community. I value discussions about respectful communication, discussions about the confinement of any species, & discussions about racism in the vegan community. I want to help ensure that the vegan movement is not transphobic or sexist. I want a veganism that works for everyone—not just “the animals” & not just the middle & upper class. You might call this approach “holistic veganism”: to acknowledge all issues connected to veganism & speciesism.
Holistic veganism is a target of continual criticism from so-called “practical vegans.” Their argument is that language usage is unimportant—that worldviews are unimportant—that even human liberation movements are unimportant (!). Instead, they claim, only suffering & happiness matter. And they claim that, because “there is so much animal suffering,” we should ignore all that other stuff. This was, for a time, my understanding, too, but I’ve come to question a lot about this approach. Now I pose the question, Is “practical veganism” really practical?
My current belief is that, if our goal is liberation for everyone, holistic veganism is actually more ‘practical’ for at least two reasons. First, holistic veganism takes into account an understanding of the nature & structure of the oppression we wish to end—how it came to exist & how it is perpetuated today. Second, holistic veganism takes into account ideas & attitudes perceived to be intrinsically connected to veganism & the world we want to create.
The structure of oppression
The origin of oppression
When we understand the origin of oppression, I think we understand how to stop oppression at it’s earliest root. This is a reason to focus on exploitation. Nibert’s theory of oppression explains that exploitation is where nonhuman oppression begins. (We wouldn’t have the confinement, killing, or physical violence of animal agriculture if we didn’t first choose to exploit other animals for the products of the bodies. It all starts with exploiting them for their bodies.) Because of this, veganism is essentially a movement to end exploitation, & we talk about “the vegan ideal of nonexploitation. ”
On the other hand, “practical veganism” dismisses this understanding of cause & effect as “just a bunch of theories,” & they dismiss “exploitation” as an “abstract concept.” Because of this, “practical vegans” push aside non-exploitation ideals in order to make room for new, reduced-suffering versions of exploitation, which keep the cycle of oppression going in new forms.
The perpetuation of oppression
When we understand how oppression is perpetuated, I think we understand how to take away the support system & weaken the structure of oppression. This is motivation to consider ideas, attitudes, & language. Nibert’s theory of oppression explains that speciesist ideas justify nonhuman oppression, making it appear normal & inevitable. (“It’s O.K. to kill them; they’re just animals.”) So, as a vegan, I work on my own speciesism & I try to stop the spread of speciesism through language. I believe that, without speciesist atittudes as a justification, speciesist behavior couldn’t continue.
But “practical veganism” dismisses these concerns. “Practical veganism” asserts that attitudes don’t have to change—only patterns of consumption have to change. I think this understanding ignores that our attitudes determine our consumption & our behavior.
Ideas & attitudes connected to veganism
I recognize speciesism as one oppression among many, so I tend to discuss both speciesism specifically & oppression more broadly. I recognize the centrality of respect to anti-oppression work—so I promote respectful activism & respectful communication. I recognize veganism as a dedication to questioning everything—social norms, advocacy norms, & my own beliefs—so I invite debate, I continually question conventions, & I strive to learn from others’ criticisms. I recognize veganism as a movement against hierarchy, so I help form groups that avoid hierarchical structures (L.O.V.E. is a collective).
But again, “practical veganism” ignores these concerns, accepting & reinforcing any social norm consistent with “effectiveness”; working within hierarchical structures that distribute power unequally; & dismissing, even silencing, criticism within their groups.
In defense of holistic veganism
If our goal is liberation for all beings, I think a holistic understanding of veganism is helpful. It helps us to recognize the origins of that oppression, so we can stop it at the root. It helps us to recognize how that oppression is sustained, so we can stop feeding it. And it helps us to ensure that our groups and our outreach efforts are built on principles consistent with a vegan world.
Some of the common criticisms of holistic veganism arise from a genuine, core difference in values between vegans. Much of the criticism, however, seems to be simply misinformed. There are people who seem to honestly believe that, if we aren’t “practical vegans,” we must be arrogant, obsessive, uninformed vegans. My intention with this post has been to clarify some of the reasons—almost completely overlooked—why a holistic understanding of veganism may in fact be helpful, logical, effective.
The honey issue & focusing on the most marginalized groups
Oct 12th
The first result when one searches the words “vegan” & “honey” on the Google search engine is the website “Why Honey is Not Vegan.” This website, created in 1999, explains clearly & directly the reasons why veganism—in its original sense, as non-exploitation—stands against the exploitation of bees. The website pairs this explanation with an in-depth exploration of how honey is produced, allowing the reader to really understand bees & feel for their situation.
The website’s creator, Noah Lewis, is currently raising money to fund a complete overhaul & revision of the site. Proposed additions to the site include information on colony collapse disorder, a letter to raw vegans who eat honey, a review of Bee Movie, & an examination of honey & honey bees as depicted in children’s literature. The updated website would dispel myths & common misunderstandings about honey & antioxidants, the ethics of eating fruit that’s been pollinated by bees, & organic/natural beekeeping.
Beyond promoting Noah’s specific effort, I want to use this post to discuss one of the values I see embodied in this effort. That is, while it explains veganism to the public, it insists on solidarity with some of the most marginalized nonhuman animals—insects. Moreover, by arguing for the liberation of that most marginalized group, I think it effectively argues for the liberation of all groups.
Focusing on the most marginalized groups
Some vegans question an outreach effort that specifically addresses “the honey issue,” especially since other advocates intentionally avoid the subject. In a conversation with Ida at The Vegan Ideal, Noah explains the motivation behind a website exclusively about the exploitation of bees:
I see my page on bees as akin to when other social justice movements focus on the most marginalized groups. If we don’t speak up for bees now, when are we going to, exactly? In other social justice movements, the more privileged groups are always blaming the more marginalized groups, saying that they’re holding back the movement. The LGBT movement exemplifies this, where wealthy white suburban gays and lesbians are embarrassed by flamboyant pride parades and don’t understand what the T has to do with the LGB.
Along with ensuring the inclusion of bees into our idea of veganism, I think focusing on bees can actually help to effectively communicate the core ideas of veganism. When I discuss veganism with others, it’s important to me that I communicate the core, the real root, of what I’m doing as a vegan & what I feel as a vegan. For me, this means making it clear that I’m opposed to all animal exploitation. The method I’ve used for communicating this has been talking about “exploitation itself.” I try to strip away all the particulars & talk about exploitation, force, & oppression in very general terms. I’ve come to understand, however, that focusing on the most marginalized groups—human or nonhuman—tends to do this same kind of thing. I think that to seek liberation for the most marginalized groups is not only to seek liberation for those specific groups. To seek liberation for the most marginalized groups seems, instead, to demonstrate an opposition to all oppression—an opposition to “every possibility of oppression and exploitation.”
While L.O.V.E.’s approach has often been to question multiple speciesist practices in the same pamphlet—or to question multiple forms of oppression in the same blog post—I think another useful approach is to focus on a single instance of oppression & use that discussion as a vehicle to spread underlying non-exploitation ideals. This is especially relevant to everyday conversations about veganism. Often, we have an opportunity to speak to people about specific forms of exploitation that are mentioned in conversation. We can use these conversations to spread ideas of non-exploitation in general. This is what Victor & Miranda have done with a recent circus pamphlet, suggesting underlying themes of choice & consent, & I think this is what “Why Honey is Not Vegan” does.
For more:
- Noah writes about “normalizing radical and radicalizing norms.”
- “Why Honey is Not Vegan” Kickstarter page (donations accepted until Oct. 14 or until goal is reached).
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.
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 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.
Toward a Vegan World
Feb 2nd
The goal of a vegan world
I want a vegan world because I want oppression to be really gone. I don’t just want to eliminate the most “cruel” kinds of oppression in the short-term, leaving the larger structures in tact or allowing new forms of oppression to arise in the future. I want to get at the root. I want to dig out the root and do my best to make sure nothing grows there again.
I want a world where people consider force and exploitation wrong by principle; I want a world where, because of that, slavery is really gone—the poor aren’t at the mercy of the rich, women aren’t at the mercy of men, people of color aren’t at the mercy of whites, the “Third World” isn’t at the mercy of the “First World,” other animals aren’t at the mercy of human animals.
In a vegan world, ableism, classism, heterosexism, racism, sexism, speciesism, transphobia, and all other forms of oppression are gone, because if people reject force and exploitation by principle, and reject violence by principle, then they reject all oppression by principle. If we rejected the use of other animals without consent, don’t you think we’d also reject the use of human animals without consent? Don’t you think sweatshops would finally be out of the question? Don’t you think we’d take poverty more seriously? This is the world I want.
The problem with animal welfare as a “stepping stone”
Many activists say bigger cages and reduced-meat diets are “stepping stones” to a vegan world. These activists think better treatment now will lead to liberation in the future. I don’t agree with this because these efforts don’t challenge human supremacy. I think human supremacy needs to be confronted for a vegan world—a world opposed to human supremacy—to emerge.
Vegans reject, by principle, the privilege of choosing how other animals live and die; we work to give up our power over them. A vegan world is not just a world with less suffering. A vegan world is a world where humans refuse to impose on the lives of other animals. In a vegan world, humans relinquish control, power, and superiority over other animals. We stop making choices for them.
But the “stepping stones” approach is based on making choices for other animals. If we decide that, for now, family-farms eggs are acceptable, we’re making decisions for other animals (the decision that “humane” exploitation is still acceptable). The same goes for promoting lacto-ovo vegetarianism and reduced-meat diets. While I don’t condemn anyone for their efforts, a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet does not challenge human supremacy. By saying, “It’s still acceptable to eat eggs and dairy,” we make decisions about other animals’ lives for them.
The “stepping stones” approach to animal activism focuses on the surface issue of overt cruelty, leaving the underlying issue of oppression alone. Therefore, this “stepping stones” activism only works toward a world without overt cruelty, not a world without oppression. A vegan world is a world without oppression.
Why the time is ripe
As explained by the Vegan Society, “If the vegan ideal of non-exploitation were generally adopted it would be the greatest peaceful revolution ever known, abolishing vast industries and establishing new ones in the better interests of [humans] and [other animals] alike.” Considering this, there are obvious rejections to the goal of a vegan world: “This will never happen.” “This is an impractical goal.” “It’s too soon for this.” But I think the time is right for veganism.
1) Regardless of our “chances,” I think the time is always right for doing what feels right. Even if I can’t guarantee a “victory” from the start, veganism feels right to me.
2) I think we have a pretty good chance. We are here on this blog having this discussion right now, and you and I came from separate ways to make clear our position against oppression. Our movement is growing.
Walt Whitman wrote that, among the many problems in our lives, there’s a core worth appreciating: “That you are here—that life exists, and identity; / That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse.” This is our verse. We are here today—maybe not tomorrow. Let us say what we really want.