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.
No trackbacks yet.
Vegan activism is respectful activism
about 1 day ago - 1 comment
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 [...]
Political Correctness, Political Expediency, and Veganism
about 4 weeks ago - 4 comments
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 [...]
Giving meaning to veganism
about 3 months ago - 6 comments
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 [...]
On not mistaking social service for social change
about 3 months ago - 4 comments
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 [...]
Holistic veganism
about 3 months ago - 22 comments
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, & [...]
The honey issue & focusing on the most marginalized groups
about 3 months ago - 3 comments
The first result when one searches the words “vegan” & “honey” on the Google search engine is the website “Why Honey is Not Vegan.” This website, created in 1999, explains clearly & directly the reasons why veganism—in its original sense, as non-exploitation—stands against the exploitation of bees. The website pairs this explanation with an in-depth [...]
Is it natural? Does it matter?
about 5 months ago - 2 comments
In a sociology course I’m taking, to convince the class that social change is possible, the instructor told us, “Humans don’t actually have any instincts.” In Robert Jensen’s Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity—a book that I recommend—to convince readers that change is possible, Jensen emphasizes that aggressive, king-of-the-hill masculinity is socially constructed, [...]
The meanings of ‘our’
about 7 months ago - 6 comments
Recently, while reading a pamphlet we’ve been developing about circuses, an activist stopped at the line, “Some animals, like elephants, may be forced to work for over 45 years for our entertainment,” and suggested replacing the word ‘our’ with ‘your.’ This comment intrigued me because the word ‘our’ was deliberately chosen to suggest a particular [...]
The importance of criticism
about 11 months ago - 2 comments
Recently, some members raised questions about the role of criticism in vegan activism. I believe continual critical reflection is necessary to build a strong foundation for our beliefs and to improve the effectiveness of our actions.
Critically examining our ideas
If we don’t critically examine our ideas, we will not be responsive to new experiences that contradict [...]
Effectiveness and Striking at the Root
about 11 months ago - 3 comments
First, a disclaimer: I think it’s important to remember that effectiveness is only one part of what makes a form of activism viable. We could, for example, analyze whether or not it’s “effective” to bomb the homes of vivisectionists to create change. If we did, I would argue it’s probably not effective; others may argue [...]
about 12 months ago
beautiful.
about 11 months ago
I was just watching a presentation by the founder of Vegan Outreach talking about how many people work in vegan advocacy and then quit and just blog about why we shouldn’t support welfare reform. He said it’s not very helpful to animals.
I have struggled with this for a while because I was the one reading these blogs, but I have come to agree with this guy. Yes, we need to move beyond reform. Yes, reform does more damage than straight up abolition, and yes, it presents new difficulties. But what if it is inevitable? No mainstream animal product industry, other than a rare case of fur (Austria), has ever been shut down to this date. People are frustrated. Stepping stones is the way the human mind works… the world won’t become perfect over night. Perfection never happens over night.
By no means am I suggesting that we advocate welfare reform, but to spend our time fighting it seems as much of a waste of time as we claim is promoting the reform itself.
I like to think in terms of transcendence – that we can transcend reformation. Transcendence doesn’t mean getting rid of it, but simply going beyond it, looking beyond it. As a Zen practitioner, this has been my experience mentally: I can’t get rid of my faults, I can’t just toss out all of my undesired desires, just get rid of my cravings, my aversions, my addictions, my instincts because reason tells me I should. It’s not that simple. Day by day, I deepen my practice by setting small goals, by observing my actions, by increasing my awareness. And what is the abolitionist argument for reform? That is deepens society’s awareness, right?
I’m sorry, but as a Buddhist, the duality created by expending energy fighting “stepping stones” is too much for me. I found myself falling more and more into a black and white way of thinking when I read about this, even as I realized how important nonduality is to Buddhism, to a deeper understanding of life. Nonduality is transcendence.
The more I study complex social issues, from gender and sexuality to veganism to homelessness to everything else and Zen as well… the more I realize that life is messy… life is one messy business. And trying to clean it up by denying those who disagree, by cutting it up into a fine, perfect little diamond, is not the kind of mess I’m willing to leave behind. There are some situations in which you can coerce others into doing things your way (like when Gandhi fasted India into superficial nonviolence), but I can’t see how this is one of them. I tried and tried to imagine such a world, but all I saw was black here and white there and something tense and unhappy in between. And having gone through intense periods of existential doubt myself, and come out into a world of faith afterward, I must say that affirmation – sheer affirmation – is something sorely needed in the vegan movement.
There. I have been wanting to get that off my chest for months.
namaste,
aiko
about 11 months ago
Aiko,
Thank you for voicing your opinions and contributing to this discussion. This is something I’ve been thinking about a bit lately, so I’m glad you brought it up. I also watched most of Jack’s recent talk, so I think I know what you’re referring to.
I want to discuss this idea, which I saw as your main point: “[T]he duality created by expending energy fighting ’stepping stones’ is too much for me.”
First, I can relate to this feeling. I maintain that, in its extreme forms, criticism of welfare reforms is NOT what I’m trying to be about. That’s not why I decided to be a part of L.O.V.E. My goal as an activist is not to spend time cutting other people down. My goal is a vegan world, as this post explains.
I only mention welfare reforms because they seem to interfere so often with efforts to obtain a vegan world. This is how: When people first come to feel that speciesism is wrong and they want to get involved to help stop it, welfare groups often kill their idealism. The fresh vegan is generally an empowered vegan–”This is terrible; we will stop this! Humans have no right to use other animals!” But welfare groups, instead of fostering that fresh idealism, too often dampen the excitement and vigor of the fresh vegan: “Well, of course we want a vegan world, but asking people to cut their meat consumption in half is more reasonable at this time.” And the vegan idealism drains. F
Furthermore, welfare efforts reinforce a sense of human supremacy in both the activist and in the public (explained in my original post). Because of this, I logically don’t think it can lead to a truly vegan world (instead, it just leads to a less-painful but still human supremacist world).
I think we need to believe in a vegan world in order for us to achieve one. But vegans who fall into the hands of welfare groups–often unwittingly, in the case of VO–lose their idealism and stop asking questions about human supremacy because they’re told to focus on suffering.
So here is my main point: My real goal in criticizing welfare is not to build hate against welfare groups but instead to (1) save the vegan idealism that I think we need in order to bring about a truly vegan world and (2) bring the attention to human supremacy instead of “cruelty” and thus make more fundamental change.
I hope this reply doesn’t feel too negative! This post is meant to inspire and invigorate–to bring back lost idealism.!
Toward a vegan world!
steven
about 11 months ago
Aiko,
I really enjoyed your response. This was my favorite part,
“I can’t get rid of my faults, I can’t just toss out all of my undesired desires, just get rid of my cravings, my aversions, my addictions, my instincts because reason tells me I should. It’s not that simple. Day by day, I deepen my practice by setting small goals, by observing my actions, by increasing my awareness.”
I believe many on the “vegan or nothing” side of the movement have forgotten a few things. A) What it’s like to not be vegan. B) Reason doesn’t equate to reality
It’s so easy for us to say to people, “This is oppression, go vegan”. Is this the truth? Of course. Is this ethically and reasonably sound? Yes. Will it do more good than a “welfarist” approach? No, in my humble opinion. It does many things that I have found out over the last two years. It makes vegans seem unnapproachable and fanatical. People feel like they can’t talk to us; they feel so different from us. We have to remember what it was like before we were “perfect” (perfect in the sense that we have acknowledged the rights of animals and acted on it by becoming vegan). This goes back to what Aiko was saying: Just because we (humans, as a species) know it’s wrong doesn’t mean we have the willpower to act on it RIGHT NOW and 100% to the max. It’s just not in people’s heads for whatever reason. Apathy is the enemy; but we still have to keep people fired up in a reasonable manner and I believe that that can be done with approaches like Vegan Outreach’s.
Just to touch on one more thing briefly; Steven, you say,
“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 disagree. I think any action that acknowledges the fact that an animal is in fact alive and feels pain TOTALLY challenges human supremacy. Would we advocate for bigger shoeboxes for shoes? Or thicker plastic for soda pop? Of course not. Why? Because these are inanimate objects. Even if a piece of legislation “reaffirms the property status of animals” as Gary Francione loves to say, it still gets people thinking, “Hey, this is actually alive”, and once we’ve acknowledged that it’s alive and deserves more than what we’re giving it, we’ve shown compassion, no matter how misguided. Supremacy can only be ultimate power, when you budge on this, you’ve started falling downhill.
Peace,
Brian
about 11 months ago
Brian,
I think you’re misunderstanding what I mean by human supremacy. I’m talking about the massive power imbalance between humans and nonhumans. Humans control virtually everything about the lives of nonhuman animals. I’m not talking about the way nonhumans are TREATED by humans; I’m talking about who has the power to treat/mistreat as they choose.
One way to clarify the point is to think about pets–a controversial topic, but sometimes helpful in making distinctions like this. Pet ownership, generally speaking, is seen by the general public as a pleasant thing. To use your phrase, pet owners are definitely aware that “this is alive,” many are in fact obsessed or in love with their pets, and pets may be treated very well in terms of availability of food, shelter, and [human] affection.
But pet ownership, at least in its usual formation (probably always?), is definitely human supremacist. Here is why I believe this: (1) Pet owners have all the power, and they control as much of the pet’s life as they choose. Owners can scold or reward any behavior they want or don’t want. Owners are the ones holding the leash, not in the leash. If an owner wants, they can have the pet killed (euthanized). [NOTE: This is NOT a condemnation of pet owners as individuals; see more on this topic in an earlier post called "Heirarchy, Privilege, and Companion Animals."] And, (2) as Dani from The Vegan Ideal has written better than I can paraphrase,
“While 90 percent of pet owners may consider their pets as members of their families, this is in spite of the fact that these pets are abductees from another species. Implicit in the inclusion of pets in a human family is an acceptance of human supremacy that rests on the belief that humans can take better care of the other animals we keep as pets than those other animals’ own species can.” – http://theveganideal.blogspot.com/2008/12/abduction-and-pets.html
If you’re working with this kind of understanding of human supremacy–which I think makes sense, paralleling it with white supremacy–then I don’t think welfare reforms can ever challenge human supremacy. Like I wrote before, I believe welfare reforms (or anything that focuses on “cruelty” or “treatment”) are doomed to reinforce human supremacy as a whole because they debate only over the details of specific human supremacist practices.
In a less theoretical sense–and restating the main point of this blog post– Why can’t we just say what we really want? I want a vegan world. I want human supremacy to end. I don’t think we need to ask for less.
If you’ve got other examples/points, I’d love to hear them.
- steven
about 11 months ago
Steven,
I see the distinction that you’re trying to make. I respect your well thought out opinions and agree with them for the most part.
Although welfare reforms do not challenge the idea of supremacy within the parameters you’ve established, I still believe that merit can be found in them. It’s impractical to think that we can go back to Farmer John’s Rach in how animals are raised for food, but that’s not the point of welfare reform. The point is that it’s so impractical with supply and demand of animal products at their current state to create sweeping reforms that give animals “adequate” space and living conditions that factory farming would simply have to be abolished all together. I realize this is not animal rights; this is seeking the abolishment of factory farming, something that far more people can get behind than strict “all or nothing” animal rights, in my opinion. But many, if not nearly all (you yourself went veg from meet your meat) vegans go vegan because of cruelty arguments. Then they get deeper into philosophy. This seems to be working, why stop?
This is simply a fundamental disagreement we have, two different opinions. Many on the abolitionist side accuse my viewpoint as being “little picture” and many on the welfare side (I detest that name; this side simply feels that welfare can lead to abolition) accuse the abolitionists of being too concerned with purity and the big picture. To answer your question, “Why can’t we just say what we want?”… well, I don’t take that approach in this instance because I simply think it would be blowing hot air into a cold room. Nothing happens.
I want you want. I want the end of oppression of all life. I feel I am working towards that within the system. I don’t see this as compromising myself, and even if I did I wouldn’t care as long as I felt that it was the best I could do for animals. What I want to know is what steps can be taken that would be better than what we’re currently doing. To me it seems that all of the abolitionist’s in the movement are very smart, well read, and well spoken, but I’m not sure exactly what they’re DOING, and that’s what I’m most interested in.
What you wrote about domestic pets is definitely some food for thought; I’d like to check out that author you mentioned.
about 11 months ago
Brian, I’m not sure what you meant by the hot air/cold room comparison. Blowing hot air into a cold room makes the room warmer, doesn’t it? I think that’s how most heaters work. And I think convincing other people to blow hot air into the room along with me (activism) makes the room warmer even faster. And to me, it seems like the “little picture” view is suggesting that we blow lukewarm air into the room (?). But I think hot air is the fastest thing to counter cold air, right? Haha, I apologize if I completely misread (or overanalyzed) your analogy….
First, I’ll address the fact that many people (including myself) have gone vegan in response to anti-cruelty activism, and then later developed a more thorough anti-oppression worldview. I want to make something clear: I did not and would not have developed my anti-oppression worldview from reading/following anti-cruelty groups/writers. I would’ve never realized the oppression of horse-drawn carriages if I’d only read from anti-cruelty groups like PETA and VO. I would’ve never realized that birds are exploited in magic shows if I’d only read from Singer. I only gained my understanding of anti-oppression from blogs like The Vegan Ideal and conversations with people who understand veganism as anti-oppression. So, I think the current model only “seems to be working” because there are other voices challenging anti-cruelty groups. If nobody was talking about anti-oppression veganism, then I think I’d still be very limited in what I thought was unethical about the common view of other animals.
I think you ask an interesting question about what “big picture” abolitionists are “DOING.” I can relate to this concern, and I know it’s something for which VO has criticized“big picture” abolitionists (like Aiko noted originally, Jack’s call to “Do more than blog”). I feel like there’s a lot to say here:
(1) I don’t think anti-oppression veganism in the U.S. has had resources and public support comparable to anti-cruelty groups like PETA or even VO, Farm Sanctuary, CoK, and so forth, so I think it’s unfair to draw a comparison saying, “Anti-oppression vegans haven’t done as much as anti-cruelty vegans.” I think we’ve been much fewer in number, especially since the co-option of veganism (http://theveganideal.blogspot.com/2008/07/co-opting-vegan.html).
(2) I can’t speak for all anti-oppression vegans, but I know that L.O.V.E. is in an experimental phase. We’re all just waking up and realizing the flaws of past and current models for activism, so we’re going back to the drawing board and encouraging others to come back with us. Victor and Miranda are finding a new hope in mobile video projection, and you can read more about that here on our website. I’ve been exploring online activism, since that’s what first reached me. We’re trying to strip away our preconceived (inherited) notions of what’s effective and really re-think what might create real, long-term change. In fact, I’m working on a blog post that directly addresses the concept of “effectiveness” and what I’ve grown to think it means.
(3) One simple thing we are “DOING” is encouraging any & all vegans to start adopting the anti-oppression view of veganism to current forms of activism. I think most of the anti-cruelty activism techniques can be revamped to fit our message: leaflets, demonstrations, videos, books, t-shirts, letter writing, bumper stickers, blogs, and day-to-day conversation. L.O.V.E. is currently working on many of these resources. I’m creating an anti-oppression vegan video for online circulation; we’ve got a pamphlet, although it’s a bit limited; we’ve got bumper stickers and t-shirts coming along. I feel like these anti-oppression versions of current activism techniques will be more effective in the long run than anti-cruelty versions (especially if you let this measure of “effectiveness” include the benefit of a growing public understanding and acceptance of anti-oppression principles).
(4) One thing L.O.V.E. is extra interested in is creating SUSTAINED vegans. We started the Vegan Buddies program to help aspiring vegans, and we’re supportive of grassroot groups that provide support (and inspiration for activism) in communities across the country/world. I think this is something that is often underemphasized by national groups. We believe in supporting and empowering local groups to do whatever THEY feel is effective in THEIR community, which we believe is more respectful than someone coming from outside the community.
Overall, I understand your concern about what “big picture” vegans are “DOING,” but I would assert that the very reason L.O.V.E. formed was to support more anti-oppression vegan “DOING.” The people who started this group—and probably all of those who’ve joined it—are serious about effecting change. We’re just sharing our “DOING” energy with more foundational efforts: thinking about how we can REALLY effect change, trying to gather like-minded individuals, and building up the resources that will help allow us to do it.
Also I wanted to point out that there IS a difference between other organizations’ formulations of abolition/‘animal rights’ and L.O.V.E.’s formulation of abolition/‘anti-oppression.’ You kind of grouped them together in your post, so I just wanted to mention that. We don’t, for example, follow Francione (at least not as a group). I understand that this distinction can be confusing for some people, especially those who haven’t directly experienced or studied oppression as it happens between groups of humans, but there’s a blog post on here titled “Anti-Oppression and Animal Rights” that discusses the difference at some length.
A final short note: I appreciated the tone of this last response from you. Often I feel like these kinds of discussions have a lot of confrontational tension. Generally I feel in a frustrated mood after hearing/reading arguments (on either side) about welfare/abolition, but I feel like your response was respectful and gentle, and I really appreciate that. I hope that mine has been the same.
toward a vegan world!
steven
p.s. – The Vegan Ideal is a great source, and I definitely encourage you to read more from there: http://theveganideal.blogspot.com. Try starting with the older posts and then working forward to present. I know some of the posts will directly criticize your current view of veganism, but I encourage you to explore it with an open mind anyway—can’t hurt to try, right? I really admire the interest you have about this, and I’m glad we’re still in conversation!
about 11 months ago
Hi Vegan Brian and all,
I’ve read some criticism of Francione’s approach on this blog and, although it is not my intention to defend him or promote his abolitionist theory per se, I feel that his work is relevant to this particular discussion.
Francione has written in great length about animal welfare and animal rights history and ideology. If there is one thing that is totally clear from his work it is that we have had animal welfare for some 200 years now, as we know it, and there is no proof that it is leading to the abolition of the institutionalized exploitation of other animals. None at all. Indeed, there is plenty of proof that, because of animal welfare, people are constantly feeling more comfortable about consuming the bodies and bodily secretions of other animals due, in large part, to the massive propaganda campaign that erroneously asserts that animal welfare has led to “better treatment” of other animals. This is problematic because that kind of message severely undermines the vegan ideal of nonexploitation to the point that veganism is seen as the extreme, unecessary, and even unacheivable, thing to do if one cares about other animals. This is extremely damaging to cause of animal liberation (not Peter Singer’s wack ass assimilationist version : )). The fact is, the amount of other animals used for human purposes has increased dramatically since animal welfare, as we know it, has formed, and, as Francione points out, the other animals humans use are living in worse conditions than ever before. All this under the watch of animal welfare with it’s “incremental steps”.
As we all know, these animal welfare (and many “animal rights”) organizations rely on donations to stay in existence. It is much easier to make money from expensive campaigns with heavily publicized alleged “victories” than it is to confront people with the question, “is it morally justifiable, or even necessary, to use other animals at all?” In this world we live in, where the majority of people think it ok to consume other animals simply to gain pleasure from it, of course, it seems like “too much” to ask people to consider taking personal responsibility for their actions. This is worsened by animal welfare campaigns that assume that other animals are here for human purposes.
Asking people to go vegan will not make animal advocacy organizations any money… The money they need to stay afloat.
Sure Francione’s approach may be limited (as far as I know he’s never suggested otherwise) but it is definitely not “all or nothing”, and that sentiment has been progated, and the dichotomy has been been created, by animal welfarists so people will think they are doing “something” to help animals by making donations so that an organization (read – corporation), with it’s “superior expertise” can do all the work. Again, this is very damaging to the vegan ideal of nonexploitation for many reasons.
If you read his books, specifically Rain Without Thunder, Francione absolutely offers criteria for incremental steps to take in order to lead to the abolition of institutionalized animal exploitation. I cannot get into these steps right now as that would be far too much to type, but I would recommend that people read his work before making assertions about what he’s doing and saying. my point here is -Look into something before criticizing it-
I know, this certainly does seem like I am defending Francione but actually I just wanted to give a fair representation of his work to a small degree (in this short post) because I haven’t really seen that here yet, and I also wanted to show that if an organization exists to make money from “helping animals” then they will say and do anything to keep the dough rolling in. It’s nothing new.
All the best.
about 11 months ago
Brian/Lui,
I agree that there ARE incremental ways to achieve a vegan world without abandoning anti-oppression/non-exploitation ideals. (I want to apologize for any perpetuation of the “all or nothing” dichotomy that I may have caused by writing about “the problem with ’stepping stones.’” My criticism of “stepping stones” is specifically about anti-cruelty stepping stones, not meant to criticize ALL incremental pathways to a vegan world. Maybe I will revise my initial post so that I can stop inadvertently promoting a view I don’t believe in!)
Incremental steps to a vegan world are something I still intend to explore more in the near future, but here are some examples that I and other L.O.V.E. members have thought of and discussed:
1. Single-practice or single-species activism rooted in anti-oppression principles. We can still protest one instance of speciesism at a time with an anti-oppression understanding, if we wish. We just shift the argument from “Horse-drawn carriages cause suffering” to “Horses should not be forced to do our labor.” If the reasoning is based in anti-oppression, then I don’t think this incremental activism is inconsistent with the vegan ideal of non-exploitation. In fact, as we discussed on our mailing list COMMUNITY, this may be a way to interest people who might not consider going fully vegan at first. They may get attached to making this argument, “Horses shouldn’t be forced to do our labor,” and later they realize that cows and chickens are forced to do our labor, too. (But I do think there are dangers in single-species campaigns with maintaining integrity and not compromising our ideals when someone asks, “Well, what are your views on meat, because I KNOW I disagree with those vegans!”)
2. When people tell us “veganism is just too hard for me,” we can encourage them to keep veganism as an end goal toward which to progress. We can encourage them not only to “cut their meat consumption” but more-so to seek out more entirely vegan meals and to try to monitor and challenge their own speciesist attitudes and thoughts. We can say, “Try to eat vegan once or twice a week; then, at your own pace, increase the number of vegan meals.” I think this will make it more likely they WILL become vegan eventually (both because of the maintained end goal AND because of the exploration of vegan food/culture), it will allow us to maintain our integrity in our own ideals as activists, and it will help them to keep exploring anti-oppression principles without feeling as guilty or hopeless because they know they’ll “never” be consistent.
And a basic thing we can do is promote the PHILOSOPHY or WORLDVIEW of the vegan ideal. I always encourage people to keep thinking/learning/growing, even if they can’t commit to full veganism yet. I told my vegetarian but non-vegan friend that I discourage her from going to the zoo with her friends. Then I asked her, if she does go, to please think about whether those other animals really deserve to be locked in those cages. I think a big part of the work to do is creating a world that believes veganism is morally right. From there, I think it’s O.K. to let people make the actual transition (for diet, clothing, etc.) at their own pace (of course with our supporting and encouraging them along the way).
Thanks so much to all of you for this stimulating discussion. I really feel excited about doing some activism right now because of all these inspiring vibes !
peace&love, steven
about 11 months ago
I agree with you, Steven. If it weren’t for the anti-oppression approach to animal rights (via people like Cesar Chavez) I may not have ever became vegan or perhaps ever stuck with it. Who knows? One thing I do know, is that organizations like PETA did next to nothing to inspire me to go vegan (except providing some slaughterhouse footage). I often saw their impotent, sexist, racist, media hungry campaigns that were so easily the subject of ridicule, and thought, like most people I talk to, “those ‘crazy’ animal rights/vegan people”. I now know that there is a distinction between veganism (as the prinicple of nonexploitation) and “animal rights” (which more resembles animal welfare anyways – and yes, there are, historically, differing ideologies between the two -use and treatment-) but, at the time, PETA had the animal advocacy movement locked as far as I could tell and I didn’t want any part of what they were doing.
I feel that the problem lies in the fact that they so often fail to make the proper connections. This goes for HSUS and many other welfarist organizations too. It’s all about single issue campaigns and cries for “animal liberation” while giving awards to Wolfgang Puck, Temple Grandin, Nike (!!!!), etc, and insulting, and ignoring the concerns of, other social justice movements. With all I just mentioned it’s easy to see that it’s not in the interest of these groups to end oppression by any means. They just want to other animals to ostensibly be “treated better”. I mean, hell, if institutionalized animal exploitation was abolished these organizations would no longer have a source of income.
But anyways… We can always build our own movement and I feel that this anti-oppression approach (Thanks to LOVE, Dani, Vegans of Color, etc.) is the most effective way to shift the paradigm away from violence, exploitation, and exclusion. As far as I can see, this is the only way to truly acheive animal liberation and end all oppression.
about 11 months ago
Thanks all, for replying. I don’t have time for a really long response right now. I just want to address Lui quickly. See, I find your argument compelling. I wasn’t making any comments on Gary Francione. I haven’t read his work and couldn’t tell you much about it. Part of my problem is that normally on these blogs against welfarism, I feel it is not clear-cut. This is not necessarily a fault. However, there is just a complaint and an ambiguous solution, which leaves me wondering what we’re actually accomplishing by spending so much time criticizing and what I can actually say to other people that would be compelling about my stance. If I just say, “I disagree with animal exploitation because it’s inherently ‘oppressive’ and therefore harmful,” I have a feeling almost no one’s going to take me seriously because I’m just using big words that are more of a judgment than an argument. Everyone pretty much agrees that factory farming causes suffering, but few would agree that we need to get rid of the meat industry if that’s all I had to say. And I don’t know enough to say whether or not there’s validity to what Francione says. I’m intrigued and must read Francione a.s.a.p. I am confused by what you said, though… you said Francione points out that “incremental steps” have led to worse conditions, yet he supports incremental steps as the way to abolition. What kind of incremental steps are we talking about?
about 11 months ago
Hello Aiko,
I think there is a difference between the way we communicate the ideas on this web site, much of which is intended to explicate the anti-oppression view for a vegan activist audience, and the way we communicate about veganism to the general public. The content here lays the groundwork for our interactions with others and it’s up to us to find ways to communicate the ideas in a way that takes into account the context of the interaction: the time, place, people involved, relationships.
One approach that has worked well for some of us is speaking in terms of use without consent. For some people, this is more concrete than oppression. If you look in LOVE’s vegan pamphlet, you may find examples of how to speak with others about veganism in this way. You may also wish to take a look at our activist FAQ, which includes sample responses to questions people who are not currently vegan frequently ask us when we’re speaking with them about veganism.
One of the great surprises to many people is how strongly the people we speak with connect with these ideas. Because the core issue is so simple, people find themselves faced with the basic question: can I justify using others so that I may satisfy my own wants? and working through that with us. In stark contrast to the conversations I had previously arguing for a plant-based diet from anti-suffering, environmental and health grounds, the conversations I’ve had with people about this understanding of veganism have been collaborative, focused and powerful.
Victor
about 11 months ago
I totally agree with Victor. Other good choices for speaking to the general public, in my opinion, are “domination,” “force,” and “control.”
about 11 months ago
“the core issue is so simple, people find themselves faced with the basic question: can I justify using others so that I may satisfy my own wants?”
Great point, Victor. That’s the very question I asked myself that led me to go, and stay, vegan. And I was a person who was *very* resistant to the idea of veganism.
about 11 months ago
Hi Aiko,
I believe you’re referring to this statement, no? – “The fact is, the amount of other animals used for human purposes has increased dramatically since animal welfare, as we know it, has formed, and, as Francione points out, the other animals humans use are living in worse conditions than ever before. All this under the watch of animal welfare with it’s ‘incremental steps.”’
I’ll try to give a fair representation of Francione’s work as far as it pertains to this discussion.
There is, or was at one point, a difference between the ideologies of the nearly 200 hundred year old animal welfare movement and the more newly defined animal rights movement. The main distinction between them is (was) whether the main focus would be on the *use* or *treatment* of other animals. Welfarists (or those who adhere to animal welfare ideology) generally believe that it’s ok to use other animals for human purposes as long as those animals are treated “ok” or “humanely”. Animal “rights” advocates generally believe (or more like believed at one point because most “animal rights” advocates now days have come to embrace welfarist ideology and reforms) that it’s not ok to use other animals for human purposes at all, no matter how “well” or “humanely” they’re treated.
Francione comes down on the animal rights side of this in that he rejects that we humans should use other animals for our own ends at all. In chapter 7 of Rain Without Thunder titled, “Rights Theory: An Incremental Approach” he refutes the claims by animal welfarists, and, what he defines as “new welfarists” (those who claim to want to achieve abolition of institutionalized animal exploitation but adopt welfarist ideology and employ corresponding strategies – e.g. PETA, HSUS, Vegan Outreach, and many more) that the animal rights (abolitionist) approach is “all or nothing” or Utopian (and this was in ‘96 I believe) and that certain incremental steps absolutely can be taken to achieve abolition of institutionalized animal exploitation while sticking to animal rights (abolitionist) theory and to the point – That other animals are not ours to use (which is at the heart of the vegan ideal).
In chapter 7 he outlines 5 criteria for animal rights (“abolitionist”) incremental steps as such-
1)An incremental change must constitute a prohibition 2)The prohibited activity must be constitutive of the exploitative institution 3)The prohibition must recognize and respect a non institutional animal interest 4)Animal interests cannot be traded 5)The prohibition shall not substitute an alternative, and supposedly more “humane”, form of exploitation.
He elaborates on these criteria and gives examples but admits that they are limited, just a foundation that needs to be built upon.
As you can see from these criteria, for example, criterion #5, he is taking a much different approach than many animal welfare and animal rights organizations are with their costly campaigns such as, say, Prop 2 (which was supported by a vast amount of animal advocates), that focus on certain treatments of other animals by substituting more “humane” alternatives to current exploitative practices.
I’m afraid that I cannot fully articulate Francione’s position here, for lack of time and space. I would just recommend reading Rain Without Thunder to see why, according to Francione, animal welfare (now “new welfarism”), in theory and practice, is damaging to the cause of animal rights, animal liberation, a vegan world, or whatever you want to call the end of institutionalized animal exploitation.
I hope this clarifies what I meant, Aiko.
Peace
Lui
about 11 months ago
I like the idea of a vegan world where there’s no age-ism, sexism, ableism … but I get stuck imagining what such a world would look like. Let’s say, for instance, speciesism is abolished. How would I, say, build a house? If the current animal residents’ needs and desires are equal to mine, do I have a right to build on their land and shut them out? When endangered species (“charismatic megafauna”) are involved, this issue is already much discussed. But, what about the mice and beetles that even the most gentle living would affect? Also, if I use any product of industrial production (even a bicycle) haven’t I added to the oppression of others?
It seems like a worthwhile ideal to strive for abolishing oppression, but I don’t think of it as a pragmatic goal. I think of it as a practice to ask oneself: Is this action I’m taking, oppressing anyone? If at all reasonably possible, can I choose a different action that is not potentially harmful to others?
marian
about 11 months ago
Marian, thanks for the comment. As a parallel to this discussion, on our mailing list COMMUNITY a few weeks ago we had a discussion about what to say to people who tell you, “I agree with what you’re saying, but I could never be vegan.” As Dani pointed out in that discussion, I think that spreading the “right outlook”–the philosophy or worldview of veganism–is the most important and primary thing; from there, the individual changes (dietary, clothing, entertainment) can out flow at their own pace from the person’s vegan-ish outlook. I think we can apply this view to the development of a vegan world, too: If we establish a world with the “right outlook,” then the individual changes can flow out at their own pace.
As you pointed out with the house-building example, the specifics of making our world less and less oppressive are not always obvious or perfect. Some necessary changes are very difficult to imagine from where we are right now. But I don’t think that’s a reason to turn away from the path. You’re right that it will create new difficulties for us to think–ah, we have to stop killing mice–but I don’t think that means it’s OK for us to forget about the problem of mice killing all together. I think human beings are incredibly creative and, if we have the right outlook, we will find more and more egalitarian solutions over time. (Also–this gets confusing and probably inconsequential– In my opinion, if ‘the most gentle living’ person still occasionally hurts or kills beetles and mice [say, by walking or running through the woods], then I don’t really feel like that’s oppression.)
From a practical, developmental (?) angle: There are many confusing and controversial subjects for vegans to confront right now and over the coming years. But I think if we have the right ideals–which, in my opinion, are a firm belief in non-exploitation and a respect for all–then I think the details will emerge slowly as more and more people start recognizing the need for change. (And in terms of house-building and city-building, it may take many professionals working together.) Right now I’m personally most interested in increasing the number of people (vegans) who recognize the need for change (via recognizing a problem with human supremacy), but you bring up an important point, I think: The transition to a fully established vegan world will take many people working on creative solutions to many different ‘problems’ over (probably) some amount of years or even (for some changes) generations.
hope that helps?
I’d love to hear anything more on this issue, as I think the whole idealism/pragmatism thing is big for a lot of people who have concerns about accepting our view of veganism/activism.
peace&love,
steven
about 11 months ago
Once again, beautifully put, steven. I agree with you that humans are incredibly creative and resourceful when they put their minds and hearts into something and we can certainly work out the ‘details’ along the way. That’s the only way ever to work out details appropriately, is in the context of the moment and the individuals involved.
I am occasionally included in a gathering of people, let’s just say they’re experts in land and wildlife ‘management.’ My involvement is just social but they are all working on a huge land management project. Interesting that there’s only one vegan in the group. I’m SO glad she’s there and speaking from that perspective. I also have a friend who’s in that group who likes Michael Pollan and his ‘approach.’ I am very gradually broaching vegan-ish topics with her. Anyway, I just see that the group works very hard trying to make the ‘on the ground’ decisions: balancing human needs with habitat and animal needs. It looks very complex from where I sit.
I happened upon this book: “Animal Rights vs. Nature” by Walter Howard. He’s a UCDavis Professor Emeritus who self-published what reads like a diatribe against animal rightists. It’s a great brain/heart exercise for me to read this. I just wish he were here for discussion. He makes SOME good points like that when we change an environment by living in it, animals do suffer. When we try to fix what we’ve done, we may be causing more suffering. Nature is not kind so we don’t want to leave everything to ‘nature’ in all cases. I’d love to read something by a vegan who really understands human/wildlife ecology. Hmmm. I’ll put that on my reading list.
Anyway, I just want to say that I think it’s important for vegans, if we want to be taken seriously by academics and scientists, to have some familiarity with real life animal/people interface issues. But maybe the whole vegan movement, if you want to call it that, is happening on a spiritual/emotional/social… level and the intellectual side of it is just the fluff–the noise among an elite minority who is trying to make it all sound rational.
Thank-you for the stimulating discussion.
marian
about 11 months ago
I just found a page by Vegan Outreach refuting abolitionism which it calls “absolutism.” I would love to see some here refute it: http://www.veganoutreach.org/articles/welfareandliberation.html
I could go ahead and refute so many things that page brings up, but I won’t because I know that everyone here is educated enough to do a basic analysis themself. I will just say that there is something far too simplistic about concluding, “Put yourself in their feet. What would you want?” I don’t think someone in that position could be coming up with complicated theories about liberation.
about 11 months ago
As you said, Aiko, there are so many things to refute here in this very opinionated article. I’m short on time now but I want to just stress one point now and perhaps come back to this later.
My point is this – There is no proof that welfare reforms are actually “reducing suffering” (that focus is a problem in itself) of other animals. There is an abundance of proof to show that making people feel better about consuming other animals that are ostenibly “treated better” (again, a problem in itself) is actually increasing the net suffering of other animals by increasing demand for their flesh and bodily secretions. Year after year, more and more animals are “raised” and killed for human purposes, even with all these welfare “victories”. That seems like proof enough for me. I feel that this is a result of animal advocates, with all their time and resources, not striking at the roots of, and raising awareness about, the problem; human supremacy and the exploitation and oppression of others animals.
Again, I hope to come back to this at a later time.
Until then.
Peace
about 11 months ago
I agree, Lui. That Vegan Outreach page got me thinking about something. All vegan activists agree that veganism is the ultimate answer to the human-nonhuman animal relationship. VO says on that page that veganism is the best way, but that it also embraces welfare reform. But what veganism is, ‘why’ we’re ‘vegan’, and ‘how’ to achieve a ‘vegan world’ is debated among us. So I tried to divide these positions up, in order to understand better how they challenge each other. You have the consumerist/utilitarian approach which treats veganism as just everything plant-based and tries to encompass hunger, environment, and animals and tends to mention animals last and people first for some reason. This is the approach of FARM, it seems (from the materials they sent me). Then you have the suffering-based approach taken by PETA and Vegan Outreach which keeps saying that “the root of the problem” from an activist standpoint is unnecessary suffering (but often ends up arguing that the important thing in activism is to get people’s attention at all costs!). You have Gary Francione who says that “the root of the problem” is property status (abolitionism), which his followers claim is the logical conclusion of opposing unnecessary suffering. And you have the anti-oppression approach taken here, which tends to be particularly intersectional and also offers the idea of self-actualization through autonomy… in other words, it goes beyond the issue of unnecessary suffering and addresses that local vs global dynamic perhaps more so than abolitionism.
This is what I conclude from reading up a little bit on Gary Francione and abolitionism, though I still haven’t read any of his books. I am just trying to clarify things so I can explain to people the differing approaches instead of just presenting an argument with ambiguous context. But I don’t know how accurate my analysis is, so I wonder what others think. I apologize for my need to label things, but I don’t think it would hurt too much to simplify things once in a while.
about 11 months ago
I swear that Gary Francione does not pay me to “defend” him ; D, but it seems that my short life and time on this blog has been spent doing just that. As, at least, Steven and you have admitted, the both of you have (had?) not looked into his work very much so maybe this is where certain misunderstandings come from. I don’t consider myself a “follower” of him (I know you’re not suggesting that, I’m jus trying to be clear… and also, Francione himself explicitly rejects the idea of being a “leader” and having “followers”) but I do feel that he brings important issues to the table, which at very least, are in need of examination, and shouldn’t be dismissed as a whole without seriously looking into his work (Aiko, I’m not suggesting this about you because you have obviously expressed interest in looking into it). I certainly don’t agree with everything that Francione says and I feel that there are definitely valid criticisms of his work and some of his positions but really, honestly, haven’t seen them being addressed here.
You say, “You have Gary Francione who says that “the root of the problem” is property status (abolitionism), which his followers claim is the logical conclusion of opposing unnecessary suffering.”
I don’t feel that this statement is accurate and would just like to, once again, clarify the abolitionist position (Francione’s version) as I understand it. Or actually, since I was just reading the Vegan Freak blog, I’ll use the words of Bob Torres to explain why a focus on the property status of other animals is important – “Francione argues that there is no way to guarantee any significant protection for animals as long as they are property. As long as animals are property, Francione argues, the interests of the property holder will always override the interests of the property. Thus, until we can overcome this barrier of the property status of animals, any reforms we make will ultimately fail to accord animals any true recognition as persons in the long run.”
http://blog.veganfreak.com/ (March 11th entry)
To Francione and other “abolitionists”, or those that adhere to the Francionian abolitionist theory, the property status of other animals has to be abolished before we can provide any meaningful protection to them. The abolition of the property status is not the desired end result but it is an essential step to achieving the abolition of institutionalized exploitation of other animals (or an “incremental step” if you will). That is why Francione and other “abolitionists” (Francione “followers”) focus on the property status. I’m not certain about other “abolitionists”, but Francione himself recognizes that there will be other problems related to speciesism that need to be tackled after other animals are no longer legally considered the property of humans (just how abolishing the property status of human slaves in the United States didn’t end racism, and the many problems that arose as a result of institutionalized racism, but was essential as a step toward them being given any meaningful legal protection at all). So, indeed, the “root of the problem”, is speciesism (or what I would refer to as human supremacy or human power and privilege over other animals). There is a focus on, and stressed importance of, the property status of other animals for these reasons I mentioned above.
If you don’t have access to Francione’s books, I would recommend listening to some interviews with him. In particular, the several interviews on Veganfreakradio are excellent introductions to his work and will give you a better understanding of his position.
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?page_id=56
(pack a lunch because they’re kind of long)
Peace
about 10 months ago
Okay! I really, really need to read his books now! I like that: the root of the problem is speciesism. So it seems that Francione’s abolitionist theory and anti-oppressionism would not necessarily disagree, but that there is a different emphasis. Anti-oppression arguments would also be abolitionist, I should think, but actually studying Francione made it clearer to me why one would argue against welfarism. I listened to one of his interviews last night and got some details on what he believes. And I felt like telling someone about my new ideas, so I went and posted on a forum about languages mostly filled with meat-eaters, and it seemed like two out of three people wanted to attack me or completely dismiss my post just for presenting Francione’s and the anti-oppression arguments against speciesism, for abolition. I think this may have been the wrong approach. I know that LOVE’s activist advice is not to use should’s, and I more or less tried to stand by that, but I don’t think I communicated very thoroughly that I didn’t mean to judge individuals. However, it was a long post, so I didn’t want to make it longer.
Maybe this is a discussion for the mailing list.
Anyway, I just want to say that what I originally brought up about agreeing with the Vegan Outreach video is part of my personal struggle with vegan activism and that I should not have generalized because I was still trying to understand my own struggle. I realize that victor and the rest of the LOVE team have been in activism for a lot longer than I have and have been down the paths I am just discovering. I have only been vegan for five months! And I can see why, when 99.5% of the world is not vegan, and a large portion of those that are not will be hostile without either great care or great concessions to their views, it’s so easy to become an enthusiastic supporter of welfare campaigns if not forsake veganism altogether. What turns into a generalization comes right back to our own personal experiences with disagreement, and I think it’s important to remember how very personal activism is and how our own weaknesses may be affecting whether we give in or hold out.
But I have been re-reading the posts here because I think that I can develop a more practical understanding of them now that I am actually experiencing a lot of vegan activism myself! I think the arguments made sense to me, but didn’t stick in my head because it was less personal to me first time around!
Thanks so much for the discussion!
Only by communicating persistently with like-minded activists have I been able to formulate a durable argument myself in this inconvenient world.
karuna. metta. _/\_
aiko
about 10 months ago
aiko & Lui,
I appreciate this continued discussion, but I want to point out that the conversation seems to have drifted away from this thread’s original topic and become more of an evaluation and discussion of Francione. We already have another thread that addresses Francione’s work in more detail, and so I would direct you both to that thread for any further discussion of his approach:
http://loveallbeings.org/blog/anti-oppression-and-animal-rights/
Thanks! steven