Posts tagged veganism
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.
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.
On not mistaking social service for social change
Oct 25th
Ida’s recent post at The Vegan Ideal, “The Absurdity of ‘Triage’ and the Need for Social Change” recalled for me Paul Kivel’s excellent essay “Social service or social change?” in The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex. A version of the essay is available online. In this excerpt (this portion is not in the online version), Kivel describes the difference between social service and social change, and the limitations of social service in the context of his work to end domestic violence:
Social service work addresses the needs of individuals reeling from the personal and devastating impact of institutional systems of exploitation and violence. Social change work challenges the root causes of the exploitation and violence. In my travels throughout the United States, I talk with many service providers, more and more of whom are saying to me, “We could continue doing what we are doing for another hundred years and the levels of violence would not change.” I meet more and more people who are running programs for batterers who say, “We are only dealing with a minute number of the men who are violent and are having little impact on the systems which perpetuate male violence.”
In a similar way, from an anti-oppression perspective, animal welfare, which has exploitation as a precondition, is a form of social service and veganism, which recognizes and challenges the structure of oppression, offers the possibility of social change. Ida writes:
[I]f we don’t address the exploitation that is underlying the structure of human supremacy and is justified by speciesism, then there will always be nonhuman animals who are casualties of that exploitation.
…
Prevention means radically transforming our perspective on the exploitation of other animals. Instead of taking the exploitation of other animals for granted and working to do “triage” on the so-called “worst” cases – while leaving others to linger in their exploitation – we view the exploitation of any animals as obsolete. No longer is exploitation seen as a given, but as something that needs to be radically replaced with nonexploitation.
This is not to say that social service work is not valuable: far from it! It is of course important to attend to the immediate needs of individuals.* This is simply being honest: social service, by itself, does not lead to social change.** In fact, Kivel’s essay explains why “many social service agencies may be intentionally or inadvertently working to maintain the status quo,” and this is where social service can hinder social change.
If our goal is liberation for all, I think it’s important to acknowledge the limitations of social service so we don’t mistakenly believe that our work in animal welfare (social service) will somehow lead to animal liberation (social change). And I think it’s important to not confuse social service for social change, so that if our hearts ask us to work for social change, we are able to fulfill that request.
* Though, note: many animal welfare campaigns don’t serve the needs of actual individuals.
** Sanctuaries for non-human animals, though often problematic in practice, are a form of social service that in theory attend to the needs of individuals. But since sanctuaries address the effects rather than the causes of exploitation, they are assured a constant stream of individuals in need of their services. The service violence provider who said, “We could continue doing what we are doing for another hundred years and the levels of violence would not change,” could equally have been speaking about sanctuaries and speciesist oppression.
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.
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, for good. I don’t just want to get rid of the most “cruel” kinds of oppression in the short-term, leaving the bigger structure in tact, or leaving new forms of oppression free to arise in the future. I want to get at the root of the problem. I want to get at the root and dig out that root and do my best to make sure nothing ever grows there again.
I want a world where people see force and exploitation as wrong by principle; I want a world where, because of that, all forms of slavery are really gone—where the poor aren’t at the mercy of the rich, where women aren’t at the mercy of men, where people of color aren’t at the mercy of whites, where the “Third World” isn’t at the mercy of the “First World,” where other animals aren’t at the mercy of human animals.
In a true vegan world, ableism, ageism, classism, heterosexism, racism, sexism, speciesism, and all other forms of oppression—they’re gone. Because if people reject force and exploitation by principle, and reject violence by principle, and affirm everyone’s equality by principle, then they reject all oppression by principle. If people reject the use of other animals without consent, don’t you think we’d also reject the use of fellow human animals without consent? Don’t you think sweatshops would finally be out of the question? Don’t you think we’d collectively take poverty and inequality a lot more seriously? This is the world I want.
The problem with “stepping stones”
Many activists, downplaying direct vegan advocacy, insist that efforts for “bigger cages” and reduced-meat-diet advocacy are “stepping stones” toward a vegan world. These activists believe that better treatment now will lead to full liberation in the future. I can’t agree with this view, however, because these efforts fail to challenge human supremacy. I think human supremacy needs to be confronted in order for a vegan world—a world fundamentally 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. This is a critical point, I think. A vegan world is not just a world in which there is less suffering. A vegan world is not just a world in which humans refuse to hurt the other animals they control. A vegan world is a world in which humans, by principle, refuse to impose on the lives of other animals. In a vegan world, humans give-up control, power, and superiority over other animals. We stop making choices for them.
But the “stepping stones” method is based in making choices for other animals. If we decide that, for now, factory-farm eggs are unacceptable but family-farms eggs are still fine, then we’re making decisions on the behalf of other animals (the decision that “humane” exploitation is still fine). Then we’re holding onto a position where we’re superior to chickens—we still choose their fate for them. The same goes for promoting lacto-ovo vegetarianism and reduced-meat diets. While I applaud anyone’s desire to eat more ethically and I condemn no-one, a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet does not challenge human supremacy. By saying, “It’s still acceptable to eat eggs and dairy,” we’re making decisions about other animals’ lives for them. But in a vegan world, individuals choose their own lives; no-one is used without their consent.
The “stepping stones” method of activism toward a “vegan” world focuses on the surface issue of overt cruelty, leaving the underlying issue of oppression alone. Therefore, I’m convinced that this “stepping stones” activism only works toward a world without overt cruelty, not a world without oppression. But a vegan world is a world without oppression.
Why the time is ripe
The emergence of a vegan world would be a big change, clearly. In the words of 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.” So I anticipate the obvious complaints: “This will never happen.” “This is an impractical goal.” “It’s too early for this.” But ah, I think the time is quite ripe.
First: I believe the time is always ripe for doing what we feel is right. Can we guarantee a victory from the outset? Probably not. But can we ever? And does that mean we abandon our drive to do what is right?
Second: I don’t believe it’s hopeless at all. Notice that we are here on this blog having this discussion right now. Notice that you and I both came from separate ways to realize that oppression is wrong by principle. And notice how many suns we have burning within us and how powerful we are when we stand together.
Walt Whitman wrote that, among the many problems, difficulties, and tragedies on earth, there’s always a core worth appreciation: “That you are here—that life exists, and identity; / That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse.” So this is our verse. We are here today—maybe not tomorrow. Let us finally say what we really want. Let us stand for something now.
On Suffering and “Unnecessary Harm”
Jan 12th
As long as vegans keep basing activism on suffering, I don’t believe other animals will see liberation, true freedom, and true respect. The suffering of other animals, as I see it, is only the effect of a bigger problem—human supremacy, humans wielding power over other animals, humans controlling the lives of other animals—and is not the problem itself. Focusing on suffering takes activists with good intentions away from the issues that can really effect change, the issues upon which nonhuman animal oppression is really based.
Here is one demonstration of such a distracted focus that I recently came across online. Gene Baur of Farm Sanctuary appeared on Larry King Live in 1991 to discuss factory farming. Many vegans currently support efforts to educate the public on factory farming. However, if the suffering and “cruelty” of these facilities—instead of the human supremacy, the dominance—is the focus, then I see endless reforms as being inevitable, delaying and even challenging deeper change. Here is a transcription of one exchange between Baur and King (video interview here):
Larry King: “Are you opposed to the eating of animals?”
Gene Baur: “Personally, I’m a vegetarian. But that’s a decision each of us has to make for ourselves.”
Larry King: “So those who want to be able to eat it [meat] should be able to eat it. You’re just saying there’s a more humane way of treating them and killing them.”
Gene Baur: “Absolutely.”
This is coming from the president and co-founder of a so-called “vegan” organization—one that “has never and will never support so-called ‘humane’ meat”—one that “maintain[s] that the words ‘humane’ and ‘slaughter’ are mutually exclusive” (from their website).
My point here is not to criticize a single organization or single individual, or a single individual’s slip-up, if that’s what it was. My point is to steer us away from this general notion that “humane” is what we’re looking for—that “suffering” is what we’re against. These are popular views in animal activism today, even among “vegan” groups.
For instance, another “vegan” organization, Vegan Outreach, claims the following: “[I]t is naïve, at best, to believe that any system will really take good care of the animals we pay them to slaughter. If you say an individual is just meat, they will be treated as such” (from their website). I think this logic lures in many vegan advocates, because it seems to staunchly oppose all meat production, and it seems to suggest a way of seeing other animals as individuals, not just the products taken from their bodies—a kind of respect, then.
But notice that the complaints VO makes are only about how other animals are “treated” on farms—not the fact that they are forced to stay on those farms in the first place; that they are held there without their consent; that humans have complete control over their bodies and lives. VO does not complain about human supremacy; they only complain about particularly cruel instances of human supremacy. They are O.K. with the master-and-slave relationship—just not O.K. with specific, “cruel” manifestations of it.
I haven’t read as much from Francione, so I would be personally unfounded in making general, sweeping claims there. However, from what I have read, I’ve seen a similar trend in focusing on suffering/pain/harm, specifically “unnecessary harm.” I realize that some of our supporters at L.O.V.E. currently espouse Francione’s beliefs, so in critiquing these ideas I want to emphasize that I am not personally attacking anyone or the work they’ve done. We all mean to do well, and I condemn no-one. I just want to start a discussion about these issues, because I think they are vital to our really achieving liberation in the long run.
I recently brought up the following point about an abolitionist definition of ‘vegan’ on our mailing list.
————————-
E mentioned something that has been on my mind lately:
“[W]e ought to unequivocally draw the issue back to veganism (as the expression of one’s belief that it’s wrong to unnecessarily harm any animal, not just this one or that).”
I noticed this definition a couple of days ago at veganpamphlet.com, too, but I don’t feel like that’s what veganism means to me. (This is, of course, no offense to E or anyone else who currently sees veganism this way–only an observation and something to discuss.) I feel like avoiding harm is only one aspect (or result) of vegan living, but veganism as a whole suggests a larger respect, beyond “‘harm’ versus ‘no harm.’” I think veganism is more like one’s belief that it’s wrong to impose on the life of any animal–that it’s wrong to force, control, or otherwise disrespect any animal. This is, I think, largely why and how L.O.V.E. distinguishes ourselves from other animal rights groups (in our website’s F.A.Q.); our understanding of veganism includes an understanding of power. We see control over another’s life/body as problematic in itself, regardless of pain.
I think “harm” is often a result of imposing on other animals’ lives, but not always. For example, I would be opposed to sterilizing free-living bears (Dani has discussed this, too–I probably first understood this concept from Dani’s writings), because sterilizing them means we are in control of their bodies and their lives. Because we choose for them whether they can have children; we impose on their natural life. But sterilization doesn’t necessarily cause “harm” (at least not pain, suffering). Many claim such sterilization even prevents harm in the long run, because fewer bears will be hurt and killed for “getting in the way” of humans. I would be concerned about vegans supporting this sterilization based on ‘avoiding unnecessary harm.’
[Dani at The Vegan Ideal also wrote that this sterilization couldn’t be seen as a manifestation of “animals as property” (another Francione concept). So far in my own understanding, I feel like “animals as property” seems to hint at a bigger problem with power and control, but again I just don’t see it getting at the root. That is, power abuse also exists between people who are not each other’s “property,” so I don’t think “property” status itself is the problem.]
———————————–
Notice that, when we focus on pain, suffering, or harm, then we are not focusing on the underlying issue of power itself (control, force, oppression). Yes we cause other animals terrible suffering, and I want that to stop, now. But I don’t see that suffering as faceless and random. I think nonhuman suffering only exists in such quantities because we humans assume control over other animals’ lives. That is, I don’t believe suffering is the root of the problem, only a result. We assume a position of power over other animals, instead of living side-by-side with them respectfully; that, I think, is the root of the problem. A vegan world is not just a world with less pain; it is a world in which we live side-by-side respectfully with all.
Dropping the activist label
Jan 4th
Over the past few years, I have noticed how many vegans divide ourselves into two categories: the activists and everybody else. Most of the time, the activist category consists of employees of animal welfare non-profits and a handful of “superstar” volunteers. I know some people who are very active in promoting veganism who don’t consider themselves activists. Ironically, some of these “non-activists” do more for veganism than the leaders of some of these non-profits!
LOVE’s FAQ defines veganism as “an active ethical stand against the oppression of any sentient being, human or non-human.” This means, when using this definition, we can drop the “activist” label and simply say “vegan.” Without the burden of the artificial delineation between “real” activists and the rest of us, we can concentrate on working to end oppression. It also means no longer ceding responsibility to “real” activists for change in our communities and instead taking personal responsibility for doing so.
This also means no longer confining activism to the narrow realm of what “real” activists do. So all the conversations we have with friends, family, coworkers, and neighbors about speciesist and other forms of oppression; our efforts to build a community with local vegans; our efforts to support new vegans so they thrive as vegans; the many ways small and large we each work to end oppressive systems – all of this is activism, all of this is the vital, necessary work veganism asks of us.
Last year, Miranda and I met fellow LOVE member S. when they were visiting from Spain. They told us how all the vegans they know in Spain are activists and how there is a culture of activism in that vegan community. When I think about what that would look like here, I feel very inspired. This is the kind of atmosphere I hope we can all help create in our communities. When we stop outsourcing activism, we reclaim the power and possibility of change.
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.
Why animal commodities still sell
Dec 13th
I try my best to operate outside of the structures of oppression that are currently provided by our society, the economy being one of them. So much of our “American way of life” is built on foundations of — and perpetuated by — oppression. From the class of people who are kept in poverty so that the wealthy have someone to clean their houses and do their nails, to the sex trade that ensures women (and their bodies) a commodity status, to the slaughter of animals so their flesh and fur can be sold on the market, it all seems so heinous that I don’t feel good about participating in any of it — not to mention how preposterous it is to me that we have to pay for basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter. In that spirit, I am a vegan who grows and forages as much food as possible and is not often found in the faux-meat section of the grocery store. I encourage the growth of small barter economies (see also: the really, really free market; freecycle.org; and freegan.info) and any self-sustainability offered by your local climate (guerrilla gardening, anyone?).
My friend Drew recently passed along the following article about the oppressive qualities of our economic system, the trade in animal bodies as a thriving economy, and what the perpetuation of these systems means for oppressed animals and human animals. It’s a great read, and really got me thinking about how I can further step back from a consumeristic lifestyle. First step: not buying anyone a damn thing for the “holiday season,” because no one should be trampled and left for dead so that others can get a “good bargain” on things they don’t need.
Other suggested reading (get ‘em at your local library!):
- Global Woman by Barbara Ehrenreich
- Grassroots Warriors: Activist Mothering, Community Work, and the War on Poverty by Nancy Naples
- Toolbox for Sustainable City Living: A Do It Ourselves Guide by Stacy Pettigrew and Scott Kellogg
- Food Not Lawns: How to Turn Your Yard into a Garden And Your Neighborhood into a Community by H.C. Flores
—-
From Bull Market to Bear Market: Why Animal Commodities Still Sell
by John Sanbonmatsu
On Wall Street, the “Bull” market has turned into a “Bear” market—capitalist argot for a market in which sellers crowd out buyers and in which the value of publicly traded corporate stocks falls. Whether rising or falling, however, the capitalist market always treats other living animals the same way, which is to say as symbols of exchange and as living commodities to be bought, sold, traded, killed, and consumed.
In September, at the very moment when world markets were falling sharply throughout the world (the Dow Jones suffered its biggest one day point decline since the 9-11 attacks), at least one investment sector remained profitable to über-wealthy investors: speculation in dead animal bodies, gussied up as High Art. In an article entitled, “Bull Market for Hirst in Sotheby’s 2-Day Sale,” a New York Times reporter wrote:
It was as if Sotheby’s here was a little oasis far removed from the grim news of the financial world. In less than 24 hours, giant tanks of dead sharks, zebras and piglet submerged in formaldehyde; glass cabinets filled with medical supplies, cigarette butts or diamonds; paintings of everything from dots to skulls—233 works by the British artist Damien Hirst—were snapped up at a brisk clip by collectors from all around the world.
One of Hirst’s works, “Pigs Might Fly,” described by the Times as “a piglet with dove’s wings in a gold-plated case filled with formaldehyde,” brought in $872,139. Another , “The Broken Dream,” of “a foal’s head floating in formaldehyde with a knife beside it” brought in $907,480. In the end, the two-day sale of Hirst’s art netted $200 million—about half the Gross National Product of the country of East Timor (population: 1.1 million). Maybe a foal’s head floating in formaldehyde isn’t really good art—aestheticians will quarrel–but no one can say it isn’t good business.
Nonhuman animals in fact remain one of the few universal symbols of exchange under modern capitalism. Human beings buy and sell other animals like slaves, display them alive in zoos and aquariums for their pleasure, kill and stuff them for the local Natural History Museum, buy and sell them as “livestock,” or turn their corpses into art (Hirst’s ersatz animal sculptures are merely the latest iteration of nature morte, the “still [dead] life” tradition handed down to us by medieval and early modern European artists). Even today, as we enter the most profound crisis in world capitalism since the 1930s, Wall Street continues to do a brisk business in Pork Belly Futures. First offered on the Chicago Merchantile Exchange in 1961 (as a way for hog producers to hedge against price volatility in the market), Pork Belly Futures allows capitalists to place bets on the number of living beings who will be commodified and slaughtered in the future. That is not exactly right, however. So vast is the market that the minimum unit of exchange is in fact counted not in individual beings (who, after all, do not count), but as a quantity of flesh–“40,000 pounds of frozen pork bellies cut and trimmed.” Shylock may not get Bassanio’s pound of flesh, but today’s wealthy investors (Gentiles, Jews, Muslims, Atheists) get their’s by the ton.
What about those who lack the resources to gamble on the future options market, or who can’t cough up a cool mill for one of Hirst’s formaldehyde-drenched piglets ? Try starting up your own pig business. Global Swine Exchange thrives to “assist swine producers as well as other livestock producers throughout the world in finding breeding stock…with superior genetic potential for existing, expanding, or beginning operations.” Or start even smaller: many companies sell live baby pigs online for individuals to feed, nurture, and murder on their own, for $110 each. However, raising a pig can be daunting. So the growing vogue among young urban professionals and suburban soccer moms these days is to raise chickens rather than pigs at home. Baby chickens are even cheaper–$2.12 each per head. You can also accessorize. The Omlet Company sells an “eglu” for your backyard– “a truly innovative, practical and fun way of keeping chickens.” (“Collecting fresh eggs from hens in your backyard not only ensures you get fantastic tasting eggs but you also get a good feeling inside from knowing exactly where your food comes from.”) And when the chicken no longer produces good eggs, or if you’re just tired of being an urban farmhand, why, just kill your animal–by decapitating her. You can buy a DVD to learn how to do that too (www.chickenvideo.com).
Few animal rights activists appreciate how much capitalism continues to be one of the main driving force behind the extermination and enslavement of other sentient beings. While humans have been enslaving other animals at least since the Neolithic Era, some 12,000 years ago, only in the twentieth century did nonhuman beings get reduced to pure commodities—to abstract quantities to be viewed and treated as mere things. Capitalism reduces all value to the value of exchange—to what can be bought and sold for profit. The barbaric practices we see today throughout the animal slaughter industry –unwanted baby chicks being suffocated alive in large garbage bags, or fed alive into crushing machines; pigs and cows being skinned or boiled alive, the extermination of the great fishes of the free oceans (through the euphemistically named, “over-fishing”), minks and foxes being electrocuted and gassed by the millions for their fur, factory “fish farms,” where salmon, talapia, and other captive species live out their short lives in tiny watery hells filled with thousands of other fish, eating and breathing their own feces, and on and on—are the necessary complement to the capitalist mode of production. Just as capitalism forces a “race to the bottom” in human workers’ wages, it places irresistible pressures at every point of the animal production system to maximize the unfeeling exploitation of animal bodies. For the only way to meet demand for flesh in a mass consumer society is to cut corners, speed up production, hire unskilled labor, and lower production costs. As for the animals trapped in such a system, they become objects to be manipulated at will, even on the genetic level, as though they were not living, breathing, feeling, thinking beings. The atrocities we hear about in animal agriculture reveal the essence of capitalism as such, which is fascism.
As the world capitalist economy now convulses and enters its greatest crisis since the Great Depression, the stakes for the other animals with whom we share the planet could not be higher. In the short-term, a global economic depression will indirectly reduce some animal exploitation. Depression will hurt some markets for animal flesh, as government subsidies for agribusiness face new pressures, and as people cut back on expensive “meats.” Investment in genetic engineering of nonhuman animals, especially for pharmaceuticals, will persist, but there will be less and less money available for R&D. However, global depression will also hurt animals in a variety of ways. As the ranks of the unemployed swell, so too will the animal shelters, as families find that they must choose between eating and keeping their nonhuman companions. Meanwhile, in the Third World, increasingly desperate farmers, displaced urban workers, and landless peasants will turn more and more to “scorched earth” consumption practices simply to survive in the face of regional and local wars, mass starvation, and social dislocation. (Pity the poor Mountain Gorillas of the Congo, whose lives, like those of millions of black human Congolese, count for nothing these days.)
In the long-term, however, the greater danger facing the other animals on our earth is not the economic downturn, but eventual stabilization and recovery of the world capitalist order itself. If the Obama Administration and other governing corporate and political elites succeed in stabilizing capitalism, enabling it to live to see another day, then we can look forward to another hundred years of ecological ruin and mass enslavement and killing of billions of other sentient beings. So long as other animals are seen and treated as commodities for the ceaseless production of more and more profit for the few, their fates will be sealed. The rate of animal and plant species extinction will continue to accelerate, as global warming and habitat destruction deprive them of the basic means of life. Meanwhile, the living Hell that is the American system of animal agriculture—what can only be called the “concentration camp” model of flesh production—will continue to be exported to all four corners of the globe.