Do Welfare Reforms Lead to Abolition?
Earlier this week, Scott left the following comment on Cyrano Interviews Steve Best:
I’m wondering if you could discuss the means by which you resolved the question of whether welfarist reforms can lead to abolition. This is a current "Gray Matter" for me, one which I go back and forth on. I hear alot of people say it can, and alot of others say it can’t, but rarely do I hear a convincing argument for either. I think your "path" to resolving the issue may be helpful to others.
Here’s my thought process, flawed as it may or may not be:
- When I began blogging daily at Animal Person, I was still a member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I didn’t agree with all of their tactics and hijinks, however I thought we were on the same page in general. I thought that we (PeTa and I) wanted to someday abolish the use of sentient nonhumans by humans, and because that goal was so far off, in the interim, working to relieve suffering was a worthy goal.
- I don’t think I believed welfare reforms would lead to abolition, as that doesn’t make sense because that would be saying: the more you regulate a use of an animal, the more likely that the use will go away. The reality appears to be that the more you regulate a use of an animal, the more likely it is that the people who objected to the suffering of the animal are going to be appeased and thereby either not complain as much, or even advocate the use of the animal because of the reduction in suffering.
- This is why the suffering argument can be a problem for activists. If you don’t support the minuscule alleged relief of suffering (and maybe it’s more significant than that, and maybe there’s no actual relief at all), you look like you’re saying you’re opposed to relieving suffering. Obviously, no one is opposed to relieving suffering.
- If your argument is that abuse and exploitation are inherent in use, there’s nothing anyone can say, short of we’ll stop a particular use of a particular sentient nonhuman, that actually addresses how you are framing the situation.
- Back to what leads to what. My advice is to look at history: Has there ever been a use of a sentient nonhuman that has been abolished as a result of welfare reforms? I don’t believe there has been.
- Look at history also for welfare progress. After 200 years of welfare reform (and I recommend Dianne Beers’ For the Prevention of Cruelty: The History and Legacy of Animal Rights Activism in the United States, in which you’ll see that the abolition versus welfare debate is as old as the movement), we are exploiting and slaughtering animals in worse ways, and in greater numbers, than ever.
- Look at the most recent spate of books and articles about the profoundly hypocritical idea of the compassionate carnivore, many of which were written by former vegans or vegetarians. These people abandoned their beliefs (which, granted, must not have been too deeply rooted) and now endorse the consumption of animals because they have been convinced that it is possible to treat an animal humanely while entirely controlling her life and death. Actually, they probably never think of it that way. Instead, they think it is possible to treat animals better, so that they have better lives than their factory-farmed brothers and sisters, and we can kill them in a way that causes them less torment, fright and pain. In other words, welfare reforms have actually caused these people to go back to eating animals. That’s the story their words tell you.
- It was Gary Francione who made me realize the importance of the property status of sentient nonhumans. Welfare reforms do nothing to address the one problem that is the cause of our horrifying use and abuse of animals. Check out his blog post for this month, which addresses recent reforms that have been touted as "victories," and all of the reasons why they’re nothing to celebrate.
- It can be said that the legal system has so far been used only to further entrench the property status of animals, meanwhile corporations, which are considered persons when sentient beings are not, actually have more rights than living, breathing nonhumans. (As Noam Chomsky says, "The legal system was reshaped to accommodate for the needs of private power.") In fact, corporations have more rights than you.
- Though capitalism is still a Gray Matter for me, I must concede that animal use certainly fits perfectly into a system designed to profit from whatever "resources" one can make, find or use. Capitalism practically (and many say the causality is far less tenuous than that) leads to exploitation of anyone who can be oppressed. (I say human greed, lust for power and lack of creativity, not to mention lack of compassion, lead to that, but that’s me.)
I never said my thought process was linear.
What I would like to know is: What is the argument for welfare reforms leading to abolition? Where’s the evidence? Do people think welfare will lead to abolition, or are do they just feel that they have to do something, and so they resort to any kind of victory (i.e., welfare reform)? I understand the latter position, as I once agreed with it. But after what I’ve seen in just one year, with the increase in "humane" animal products and the books, farms and butcher shops that have former vegetarians behind them, I have all of the evidence I need that welfare reforms do one thing for certain (as the level of suffering reduced is debatable or the reduction is easily debunked): They make people feel more comfortable about using sentient nonhumans.
I hope some of that helps.
I think there are many, excellent, valid arguments against welfarism. But I also think there isn't enough of a distinction between welfarism and incrementalism. Incremental abolitionism is not the same exact thing as welfarism, though there may well be some overlaps. The bans of certain types of egregious cruelty like veal is a good example. That's incremental abolitionism because it prevents one type of animal use that makes other forms of animal use less profitable and could eventually lead to abolition.
Another example: encouraging veganism on the basis of animal cruelty rather than animal use results in the same abolitionist goal, and likely the new vegans broaden their understanding of animal issues and may well become abolitionists themselves even if they began as welfarists. Even PETA encourages veganism (at least sometimes).
I think we should be very careful of making broad generalizations such as the type that call pro-animal organizations completely welfarist or abolitionist. Most organizations do a little of both. The world isn't black and white. We should stop trying to make it so.
Instead of looking at the history of animal rights for examples of overlaps between welfarism techniques and incremental abolitionism, we ought to look towards anti-slavery, anti-death penalty, anti-segregation, children's rights, women's rights, and other rights-based movements. I won't argue that welfarism is good. But I will say it's part of a growing trend of human interest in the subject of animal rights. And overall, that's a good thing 🙂
Apparently, this destroys your whole argument.
http://www.vegan.com/blog/2008/06/02/egg-industry-practices-televised/
No, not really.
It demonstrates the most important limitation of welfare reform in animal agriculture. Humane methods of killing are devised, but the killing, and more importantly, the exploitation, is still inherent in the process and no amount of welfare legislation is going to change that.
The blogger, a great person and welfare proponent, stumbled into abolition rationale, agreed with it, and didn’t even realize it.
Responding to Elaine:
Whether animals are exploited or not is a fairly black and white issue. With a welfare perspective, it’s infinite shades of gray.
Reducing cruelty in the veal industry is a horrible example of incremental abolitionism. It just makes veal acceptable; it invites consumers who wouldn’t consider eating veal to begin eating it again since the production is approved by animal welfare organizations. If you said something like seeking to ban greyhound races–here today, gone tomorrow–okay, but happy veal? No way.
PeTA encourages veganism at least sometimes, but they more often encourage welfare reforms and rubberstamp them as humane and acceptable. Go vegan or continue business as usual with these ethical certified animal products. Given that option, the vast majority of people are not going to change their habits, they are not even going to consider veganism.
anti-slavery
anti-death penalty
anti-segregation
children’s rights
women’s rights
other rights-based movements
Okay. What welfare strategies lead to abolition in these situations?
Open question for everyone, feel free to jump in, there may be some real answers for Mary in this inquiry.
If I'm driving from NY to Chicago and go through Cleveland on my way, my car got me to Chicago, and Cleveland had nothing to do with getting me to Chicago (I could have also flown a plane and skipped Cleveland all together.
In the same way, if I'm going from full animal consumption to veganism and stop by "happy" meat on the way, it is vegan education (i.e. the causal vehicle) that got me to veganism, and "happy" meat (welfare reforms) had nothing to do with getting me to veganism. It is entirely possible to skip "happy" meat and go from traditional animal products to veganism "overnight". It is impossible to get to veganism without vegan education (if even if it is self-education).
I'm planning to elaborate on this in a blog essay soon.
Can I say something? It's REALLY time to leave the terms "abolitionist" and "welfarist" alone. This so called "movement" by GF and his little friends has done "nothing" to cure the ills that KILL (on a daily basis) the very animals we care so much about. Discussion is fine. It's just dandy. But "abolitionists" have done "nothing" to stop factory farming…to create more vegans, and to stop the horror that is factory farming. The abolitionists…at "best" have done nothing more than create a so called "society" of like minded individuals that do NOTHING! They write…they blog, they talk, they chat…yet the consumption of animal flesh continues to move up the scale.
The "ablolitionist theory"…has not worked so far. People need to stop blowing "smoke" up GF's ass… as he has done NOTHING to cure to problem…
If creating more vegans is the goal (which I believe it is)….than PETA has created many more vegans than the grand Poo-BA GF…
Abolitionists live in a "Secret little society of "super vegans" that do nothing but blog, talk, chat, and put down anyone that does not think on the very same page)…
Ask Elaine…they would not "accept" her to VeganFreaks…WHY?…she's not good enough? She does not eat meat, wear clothing made of dead animals? yet there exsists this little "society" of people that judge others…even when they are vegan…as to thinking they are "super vegans"…
Yet those I work with…(at a farm animal santuary)….well we accept all…vegan..omni's…anyone…and try to teach..show…and most important not JUDGE!…
(I'm sure you won't post this)…not up to par right)?
yet all i want to add is: that the "abolitionist" movement…is dead before it's off the ground…why? Because they are vegan snobs…. That's WHY!
A couple of things are debatable regarding whether we've had an "animal rights" movement for 200 years. I think there has definitively been an animal welfare movement, but not a defined animal "rights" element until recently.
As far as more animals being killed in more horrific ways, that has more to do with multiple factors, as opposed to a cause and affect from any attempt at reforms or abolition. In other words, welfare reforms aren't the cause of the phenomenon, nor necessarily the reason for lack of abolition – the reasons may exist separate from any movement activities. There is no proof that an anti-welfare approach would have resulted in a different outcome today. We could be at the same place.
Examples: Population growth (so more animals are demanded for food), technological "advances" (that allow for different farming and slaughtering methods that produce more end "products", introduction of the fast-food phenomenon, changes in cooking habits (women working out of the home), conglomerate and corporate farming (movement away from small, local farms), people switching to eating chickens and turkeys (so the number of animals being killed and eaten goes up dramitcally), etc.
In light of so many factors, it's impossible to claim that something has failed or caused more harm in the last 200 years, when nothing else has remained static.
Personally I'm excited about this trend toward the industries trying to convince people there is such a thing as humane alternatives, because it says the "movement" is having an impact. This is the rationalization and defense stage that I believe will lead to acceptance of the morality/property rights arguments by a greater percentage of the public.
Dave,
Ah if you only knew about my experience with certain abolitionists. You're ranting at the wrong person and you clearly either don't read Animal Person or aren't paying attention, as if you did you would realize that I have nothing to do with the Vegan Freaks and I never have.
I do know of the people you speak, and I have had the misfortune of having experienced their wrath for my shortcomings and my lack of purity.
If you read my blog you'd know how uncomfortable I have become with the term abolitionist, and that I include many voices, not just Francione's.
I don't participate in forums (though I have posted a handful of times when someone has recommended it on ARCO), I blog each day and have for over two years, and most of my days are filled with activism.
I sincerely hope that you aren't lumping me in with the people whom you judge as doing NOTHING. I don't know if they deserve it, but I don't.
Good day, sir.
Kim,
I highly recommend the Beers book. I didn't know the extent to which the abolitionist/welfare situation existed either, until I read the book. It really is 200 years.
I can't say that welfare reforms have LED to more animals being killed in more horrific ways than ever. What I do say is that we have had 200 years of welfare reforms, and now more animals are being killed than ever. I'm not one to say one caused the other.
Finally, I'm not at all excited by industries convincing people there are humane alternatives, because they are succeeding. People are going back to eating meat and are unapologetic about it, and that worries me.
It's ironic that as vegans argue (discuss) welfarism vs abolition – among the animal agriculture there is a similar battle. Small "happy meat" farmers vs corporate giants of the meat industry. Their issue deals with the NAIS, "The National Animal Identification System". In essence NAIS "barcodes" all farmed animals – Of course there's a fee for GPS tracking and retina scanning services. Corporations will pay a flat charge (per unit of 100, 1,000 10,000, etc). While the "small operation" (family owned farm) pays per animal. I detest both industrial and small animal ag businesses but my sympathy must lie with the small farmer.
Now, any self-respecting vegan with sights on abolition would denounce Smithfield, Cargill, Tyson, etc. as vehemently as "Dave's Cattle Ranch" or "Patty's Pigs"….. however, the "welfarist", left only with the choice between evils, would have to agree that NAIS seals the fate of "animals as property". And will be that much more difficult in the future to "un-do" adding another "200 years" to the status quo.
And if abolition can be achieved through incremental "welfarist" measures – surely total ownership (property status of animals) is being done through legislature, laws and government mandates. Even micro-chipping animals seems on the surface a reasonable measure to some – in the end it supports animals as objects, not as free beings.
I have a final question regarding "welfarism" vs "abolition": Before the "Humane" Slaughter Act, weren't all (livestock) animals "processed" while still aware? No electric stunning for pigs, sheeps or goats…. and no "bolt gun" for cows, calves and horses. If this is true – wasn't this killing method the worst possible imaginable? The fear lasts longer, obviously the pain does too. Anyway, did this or didn't it "improve" the animals lot? And if "yes" – isn't there a tiny bit of mercy with this "slaughter act" even if it was put there to help the meat industry and the workers?
I'm out to limit (end) animal suffering in my lifetime – if I have to "compromise" with "tiny" steps forward – it's better than standing still.
Porphyry, I suggested banning veal, not veal crates. I never suggested "happy veal." Furthermore, I suggested that organizations should not be labeled as all welfarist or all abolitionist, but I never suggested we can't label activities or activism as welfarist or abolitionist. Please read my statements more carefully before you accuse me of condoning animal exploitation.
Dave, They didn't accept me into VeganFreaks because I make poor first impressions (bad habit of mine) and because Bob had some wild hair up his butt that day. It wasn't related to abolition vs. welfarism. It was just a sort of fluke, I'm sure. Though, I'm also sure I'm not pure enough for some since I've only been vegan a year (regardless of the 25 years I was vegetarian prior) and because I'm a semi-wealthy semi-capitalist.
…and maybe because you said some pretty negative things about Vegan Freaks on your blog not long before you decided to join. Which made me question your interest in attempting to join Vegan Freaks as well. Oh, and maybe because you also advertised your blog in your very first introductory post. As well as some other things that other Vegan Freaks members pointed out. Whether you meant to or not, you came off as having some questionable motives for joining. I don't think your rejection on Vegan Freaks had anything to do with your "level" of veganism.
Can we please get back to what is arguably the most important question regarding how we are to spend our time, energy and money in the service of ending the exploitation of sentient nonhumans?
I'm the first one to say I don't know the answer. What I have are observations that lead me to believe that welfare reforms have not led to the ending of the use of any sentient nonhuman. I am interested in hearing evidence to the contrary. If there's anything I endorse, it's having an opinion based on a thorough review of "the facts" and an application of critical thinking to what both sides are certain are "the facts."
I find the personal attacks quite unsavory. Considering readers of this blog apparently know way more about each other than I know about ANY of you, I'd prefer it if you would communicate with each other in a way that doesn't include me. I've been in the thicket of the insult wars, and I prefer to spend my time elsewhere.
Dave,
If you don’t like the abolitionist versus welfarist distinction and discussion, then you’re welcome to avoid reading it. I realize the quotes around certain words can be a little frustrating and sometimes, the quotes are accidentally misplaced (btw, I quoted “overnight” in my last post because I meant quickly, not literally overnight), but the quotes are usually there because there are so many words like compassion, humane, and other feel-good words that are rendered meaningless by the industry-welfarist partnership, and it is necessary to put scare quotes around them. If you are frustrated with the quotes, you can imagine how frustrating it is to see these words used over and over by “compassionate” animal consumers.
You may scream SHUT UP!!!! all you want, but it’s definitely not going to change anything. I’ll continue advocating for animals and criticizing new welfarism (what you call doing nothing) while helping Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary as an unpaid volunteer CPA firm partner with their accounting and compliance.
Again, my next blog essay will discuss the inefficacy of new welfarism and the necessity to continue a new movement; the current “movement” isn’t moving at all, unless you call stockpiling millions of dollars for welfare campaigns moving.
For what it’s worth I’m not a member of VeganFreaks forum. My judgment of the blogger I referenced was “a great person.” While I’m being critical for the sake of addressing welfare versus abolition on this blog, I entertain benefit of doubt based on his character that his work will lead to long-term positive outcomes (contrary to most evidence). Also, it’s a social movement, blogging, talking and chatting is to be encouraged. If a social movement cannot hold discussions, advocate positions, and be civil among themselves then there is little hope that is can be done outside the group.
If you disagree with someone just remember that it’s okay to take direct action and destroy his or her property, as that apparently doesn’t constitute violence. (I’m kidding.)
Dave, your criticism of abolition can be reworded for animal welfare easily except an enormous amount of money and effort have been poured into these strategies and still animal killing continues to grow.
Abolition seems to gel better with veganism because that’s what happens on an individual vegan level, one abolishes use of animal products. For welfare, at this point there seems to be enough conscientious carnivores to go around that can concern themselves with animal welfare before they slaughter them, (which is the same outcome with animal rights welfare.)
Kim, you make a reasonable point regarding current trends in humane marketing. It may be a positive result of long-term animal welfare campaigns that raise a level of consciousness. However, It can be taken another way, the trend may be entirely a product of the combined conscientious carnivores (slow, traditional, local, environmental, Pollan wannabes) and may serve to entrench people in this thinking. There is a good deal of anecdotal evidence that this way of eating even attracts vegetarians and vegans.
However, look at the conscientious carnivore movement. For the most part, they don’t go about attempting to legislate or reform factory-farming practices, they attempt to have a say in the Farm Bill, but more as a way to redirect money to their practices. They advocate abolishing factory-farmed foods on a personal level and they are creating their own markets to serve their needs. Now perhaps there is the advantage of dietary habits are not so different from the conventional diets compared to veganism, but it seems like that movement is picking up steam in recent years. Something is being done right and it doesn’t involve pursuing campaigns to alleviate suffering by marginal degrees within factory-farm systems (or destroying property).
While many vegans are pursuing "incremental dismantlement" the conscientious carnivores are building the markets for the new lifestyles they wish to pursue. It’s not a choice between reducing animal suffering or standing still. It’s focus on tearing down the past in near hopeless campaigns (negative) or focus on building up a hopeful future (positive).
Elaine, I did misunderstand you. You did say ban.
Perhaps I’m ill informed, but how would a ban on veal even be possible? It’s a consequence of milk production. It’s confusing when you mention egregious cruelty of veal but claim it’s not a welfare campaign. Quickly looking up veal ban campaign websites shows images of confined calves, poor condition and suffering but no mention of why the practice exists or what the alternative is. Should dairy producers not slaughter baby animals to sell as meat? Should these calves be humanely euthanized (by gas?) or just aborted at a term where the mother still obtains the milk production effects of pregnancy but before the calf is sentient? Is slaughtering baby animal egregious cruelty over slaughtering adult animals?
The veal ban as you proposed it is the welfarist shell game attempt to undermine the dairy industry with added costs required raising low meat production calves into adulthood. We’ve seen these attempted subversive welfarist strategies and there is little evidence that they result in any progress worth boasting about.
If a veal ban did somehow pass completely, it would make some new situation that wouldn’t lead to any form of abolition of dairy production at all, it would become a more humane enterprise. Lacto-vegetarians would have even less reason to go vegan if veal production was a concern for them. Now there would be veal-free happy milk.
Unlike bans on animal racing or horse carriages in Central Park, the logistics and goals of a ban on veal is difficult to tease away from an animal welfare issue since it seems to be a ban on a symptom, excess calves and cruelty, not the cause, dairy production and animal exploitation.
I’ll retract my original statement since it was based on my error.
“Reducing cruelty in the veal industry is a horrible example of incremental abolitionism.”
However, until some clarification surfaces I’ll restate what I said with:
Proposing to ban the veal industry is a horrible example of incremental abolitionism because it’s an attempt to ban cruelty (somehow?) in the dairy industry making the exploitation of animals for milk–the actual abolition issue—that much more acceptable.
And no. I’m not accusing you of anything. I’m discussing a position.