The core difference between “You Can Help Stop This” (YCHST) and other animal advocacy videos is that YCHST repeatedly emphasizes exploitation, whereas “Meet Your Meet,” Earthlings, and other videos focus on specific details of various industries.  For this reason, “Meet Your Meat” is not a vegan video but an anti-factory-farming video.  While Earthlings addresses many speciesist practices, it makes each argument separately: specific reasons to change our diet, specific reasons to boycott circuses, specific reasons to stop using leather.  Comparatively, I think the message in YCHST is coherent, holistic, and clear.  The first titled section directly addresses exploitation, the following sections all return to exploitation, and veganism is defined as a principle of non-exploitation.   I think this clearly presents speciesism as a system of oppression, and I think it presents veganism as a coherent, effective response to speciesist oppression.

From the beginning of this project, I imagined like-minded vegans using this video in place of other activism clips that, while emotionally powerful, are limited in their presentation of a vegan perspective.  If you believe in veganism as a principle of non-exploitation, not just a lifestyle that happens to solve various problems, I encourage you to view this video and share it with people you know, to spread it online and show it in your communities.  I feel very satisfied upon completing this video and sharing it with you all; I think it expresses my reasons for “being vegan” more clearly than I ever have before.  Thank you very much.

Click here to watch the new video: www.YouCanHelpStopThis.com

K was not a practicing vegetarian or vegan, but we sometimes talked about veganism at our meetings, and we had mostly the same thoughts: Who do we “think we are,” as humans?  Why is it “murder” to kill another human and “sport” to kill a nonhuman?  Why do we think we are “compassionate” to kill “free range” chickens instead of “factory farmed” ones?  One time I suggested a documentary about speciesist oppression to K, but I don’t know if he watched it.  About 8 weeks into the semester, K stopped coming to the writing center and I didn’t meet with him anymore.

This past spring one of my friends at my university, M, said he was directing a friend of his to me so I could help him go vegetarian.  M directed his friend to me because M knew I was involved in veganism and had experience living as a vegan in our town.  I found out later that M’s friend was K, and K had decided to eat vegetarian.

I told K which stores in our town had the most options for vegan groceries, and I offered to shop with him.  I told him about the natural foods store and the restaurants in our town that have vegan options.  I told him about cooking foods like pancakes and mashed potatoes so they are vegan.  K said he was grateful and that he might be able to be “completely vegan” sooner than he originally thought.

This experience demonstrated to me the value of talking about veganism with people and “being available” as a vegan.  My role with K was mostly passive: I talked about veganism in the context of maybe “philosophical musing” or something, and then later I gave him tips about eating vegan in our town.  I didn’t have to be an “activist” really, but “simply” talking about veganism and “being there” as a vegan was helpful to him.

Another example of community-based activism is that recently I added a veganism page to my poetry blog.  Having the page on my blog is pretty passive, but it gets almost as many hits as my other pages, and I’ve received multiple comments about veganism from other poets.  In the past I was excited about combining poetry and activism to make an “activist poetry.”  Now I’ve noticed that “simply” being available as a vegan—publicly mentioning veganism as “the other thing I do”—is already helpful.   I think promoting veganism like this is very easy and very valuable.

Thank you for reading this post.

Related posts:
- The value of community-based activism
- Dropping the “activist” label
- Putting it out there

Dear friends in the L.O.V.E. community, hello!

I’m Chris and I’m posting on behalf of the Athens Vegans, a vegan collective in Athens, Greece. This is our first post on the L.O.V.E. blog and we are really glad to have found you, because for us it’s a great honour to be part of the L.O.V.E. anti-oppression collective, which has been a great resource of support and inspiration and we’ll try in turn to contribute in the most positive way.

Our group is just a few months old and it was formed for the purpose of promoting veganism, which is virtually unknown in this country. Our effort is based on the principle of doing essential and credible work and not just form a group for the sake of it. We perceive veganism in the same broader sense that L.O.V.E. and The Vegan Ideal do: as a theory and practice of anti-oppression, and the words vegan and veganism in this post are used with this meaning. In our mind, we think of this view of veganism as deep veganism (in an analogy with deep ecology). So we feel the huge responsibility on our shoulders to introduce and promote veganism on that basis and not as a dietary trend or consumer practice, as it is portrayed by its opponents.

Our involvement with the issue of veganism and the subsequent study of animal advocacy worldwide, made us realize that there are some serious mistakes being made that we in no way want to repeat. Also, we’ve come to consider as the greatest hindrance to veganism the immense confusion, deliberate or not, present in animal advocacy. Instead of the straightforward promotion of veganism which liberates animals from human oppression, we have four more approaches claiming to pursue the interests of animals: vegetarianism, animal welfare, animal rights, and the animal liberation front. As if the propaganda of the vested interests wasn’t enough, these approaches create confusion, distract from the goal and send a contradictory message to society. In the end, all these things reinforce the current structure and its beliefs and so any approach that functions in this way does not have a place in any struggle. For us, it is now clear that the above approaches are alien and hostile both to veganism and the issue of animals and they are involved in animal advocacy for their own benefit (NPIC) and to promote their own agenda. So we’ve decided to leapfrog these in-between stages of advocacy that have virtually marginalized veganism, towards the clear, movement building approach of L.O.V.E..

The above analysis has led us in setting three goals:

First and foremost, to bring vegans back to the theory of veganism. Veganism as a holistic theory of anti-oppression is the only appropriate theory to shape a vegan consciousness. No other theory or approach can shape a vegan consciousness, nor is it entitled to do it. When it does so, it is for the purpose of misrepresenting and undermining veganism. In other words, vegans need to realise that they can rely directly on their theory and its vision and not on the appropriated, co-opted version of veganism put forth by its opponents. And much to our bitterness, but rather predictably, we’ve faced the fiercest opposition from some local vegans who still stick to this version of veganism.

Second, to promote vegan activism, which is about introducing and raising an awareness of the interconnection of human and animal oppression, it is in accordance with the values of veganism (such as non-violence) and strives towards the creation of a vegan movement.  So, by focusing strictly on vegan activism and not participating in activism by the other approaches, we think that we are sending a clear message to the people.

Third, to make sure that our effort is constantly in the direction of eliminating the confusion. To that end, we will remain focused on targeting oppression and its ensuing ideology (speciesism, sexism, racism, etc), while being as minimalist and concise as possible (no endless, about everything discussions/posts). And since the oppression towards animals is the foundation for all forms of oppression (even the most oppressed human can intentionally or unintentionally oppress non humans), we’ll allocate a greater amount of our time and resources to it, while at the same time being in solidarity and respecting any genuine struggle to eliminate every other form of oppression.

Now, since the vast area of animal advocacy is really a vast desert of disappointment with no sign for the slightest positive outcome, the need for restoring veganism (the way L.O.V.E. and The Vegan Ideal do) is even more imperative. Indeed, now it’s more obvious than ever that we need to make the leap in that direction and this, in fact, is expressed in the identifying slogan of our collective: Let’s make the LEAP in the spreading of veganism!

By that we don’t mean a simple numerical growth of “accidental” vegans but the slow and steady process of building the local vegan movement/collective on the basis of the vegan/anti-oppression consciousness of its members. This requires the formulation of a clear ideological position, by processing the available material and delivering it in a way of our own, that is, finding our own voice. It’s a time consuming process but eventually it will attract the right kind of members to the local vegan movement we aspire to build.

This is our intention and thanks to L.O.V.E. and The Vegan Ideal (actually we discovered  L.O.V.E. through a post from that blog), our great inspirers in this endeavour, we’ve learned a lot on how to get started with this, but we’ll need and count on your help all along the way.

For now, all the best from all of us here and we thank you once again for your kind help and support!

For the Athens Vegans

Chris Georgiadis

So far I’ve basically completed the first part (more than half) of the video, which addresses speciesist oppression.  I also compiled a rough ending—which discusses veganism—but I’ve recently decided to rewrite the end.  (This also means rerecording some narration.)  Besides these tasks, I have a few audio problems to fix.  I feel tempted to set another public goal to finish by some date, but after the last time, I’m not sure that’s the most effective approach for me.  In any case, I’m excited about this video.  Every time I work on it I feel a somber but powerful (and “ultimately” encouraging) feeling that this is important work.  I feel like this video is going to do something important.

Besides giving an update on the video, I want to detail some other exciting developments.  LOVE member M is now working on a pamphlet to be finished around the same time as the video, based on the same script.  This pamphlet should be helpful for mobile-video projection with the new video as well as for leafleting.  In addition, we’ve also planned to restructure our website so that it’s based on the organizational distinctions made in the video and pamphlet:

First, the bulk of the site will be categorized along the lines of “Speciesist Oppression” / “Veganism” instead of “Vegan Basics” / “Living Veganism.”  This change, grouping all the “veganism” articles into one section, reflects an understanding that any exploration of veganism as anti-oppression will naturally include an interest in advocating veganism to others: “activism” is included in “veganism.” The added space given to speciesist oppression might also mark a movement by several of us toward more emphasis on ‘veganism 101.’  We’ve found that our initial audience—established vegans who want to advocate veganism as anti-oppression—is quite small.  2010, for several of us, seems to suggest a return to focusing on outreach to primarily non-vegans.

Another big change is that the new “Speciesism” section, more thorough but perhaps less detail-oriented than our current pamphlets, will no longer be organized by industry (“Food” / “Circus” / etc.) but instead along the lines of “Exploitation” / “Confinement” / “Forced Labor” / “Ownership” / “Physical Violence” / “Killing” / “Devaluation.”  This change, we hope, will bring attention to the practices and factors that repeatedly show up in many forms of oppression, human and nonhuman.

I think this organization is more conducive to a holistic understanding of veganism and to an understanding that all forms of oppression are worth opposing for similar reasons.  I think it implies that we usually don’t  need different facts or theories for each form of vegan activism (anti-circus, anti-wool, etc.); instead, the broad principle of non-exploitation can simply, consistently be applied to each instance.  Often, the same exact phrases or sentences could be said about all forms of oppression.  Highlighting this fact might make it more clear, in an intuitive way, why vegans oppose all forms of oppression and why we don’t think that such an opposition is “asking too much.”

[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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.