On Betrayal and Abolition
First let me say that if you are a regular reader, thank you, and I apologize for not posting regularly for the past couple of weeks. I . . . . (gasp) . . . . have a job outside of my home for the first time in a long, long time. I've worked from home, almost exclusively, for about two decades (if you count teaching and tutoring for The Princeton Review, which was evenings and weekends and I decided when I would work).
It has been a humbling 17 days as I walk the dogs early, shower, and get gussied up to sit in traffic for 1.5 hours on I-95 (we here in South Florida are known for our very limited public transportation options–boy do I miss NYC). I have to pay people to do things I used to do because I was available to do them and I'm not around anymore. It's comical. It's absurd.
I am the Interim Executive Director of two organizations that help former foster youth (the same orgs I chaired for a couple of years, but resigned from the boards to take this position), and it's only for a couple of months and as I always say, I can do just about anything for a couple of months. I am reinventing myself and this is a goodbye of sorts to–or at least a dramatic decrease in involvement in–something I have been deeply involved with for about eight years.
While spending hours in the car I've been thinking about various issues related to sentient nonhumans, animal rights and veganism. I haven't had time to blog–or even to work out daily like I used to–but that doesn't mean I don't read all my e-mails and go to every link everyone sends me.
Two links in particular struck me recently. One was about 4-H (from Bea maybe? I cannot locate the article), and one was a post about abolitionists.
I won't be able to write as much as I'd like, but here are my brief thoughts about the two:
- 4-H. I don't recall 4-H from my childhood on suburban Long Island. But I read two types of articles about 4-H: either about how the kids are proud of what they've done, or about how upset they are that the animal they have come to love is going to his or her death. In my mind, 4-H and programs like it in schools, cultivate betrayal disguised as "necessity," "tradition," or "culture," and I think that's child abuse. Trying to program kids to accept the killing of someone they love is cruel. Imagine if kids in 4-H were taught how to raise dogs for dogfighting (not a perfect analogy, I know).
- When I was interviewed for Animal Voices I was asked about language, and in particular "direct action." I didn't actually answer the question because what was more important for me at that moment was the word "abolition," which I had more or less stopped using because it became too much of a headache. I don't need other vegans–whom I am thrilled are vegans–coming to my blog to bully me about how I am really not an abolitionist. That's not interesting to me. I may not be a Francione-style abolitionist, but that doesn't mean I don't advocate for the abolition of the use of animals.
I want humans to stop using sentient nonhumans for their own gain. I want humans to stop trying to "manage" any and everyone whom they deem is a "nuisance." I want humans to realize that animals have lives and interests of their own, and their own freedom is one of those interests. I want humans to stop viewing animals as means to an end of some sort. Just as women don't exist for men, sentient nonhumans don't exist for humans. I am an abolitionist.
Glad to have you back.
Excellent post. 🙂
Long commutes can make you miserable. I think there is some psychological literature which says that people can get adapted to a lot of adverse circumstances, but somehow long commutes are resistant to such adaptation. Anyway, I download lectures from here and listen to them during my commute (which is only about 20 minutes):
http://oyc.yale.edu/
I also listen to some other podcasts, usually about animal stuff. I used to listen to NPR, but I haven't had a working radio in my car for over a year.
On another subject: I confess that I probably read only about a quarter of the posts on this blog, but I'm curious why you think that your views are incompatible with Francione-style abolitionism (to which I subscribe).
Good commentary, I'll hope you'll keep writing whenever you have time.
May we all continue to be critical thinkers!
This post is very inspiring. Thank you, Mary.
You are an abolitionist. Since the first time I started reading Animal Person, you always were. Though, perhaps, in regard to rights issues across the board, you are even more than that? Perhaps a single label cannot contain all that you are and define all that you believe and all that you do for both animals and human animals. I would venture to say that the label is deficient and lacking. But that’s just me ;-).
Respectfully,
Jeannie
Ah Mary… you may have been gone a bit – but you certainly haven't lost your edge! 🙂
I agree that one size doesn't fit all… we each have our own way of integrating and refining what abolitionist advocacy works best for us.
About 4H I wonder too why it's always permissable for culture to indoctrinate kids to the idea of animals as commodities, but never okay to teach them true respect? And if the idea that animals are things and slaves is wrong — where does a "good" activist draw the line concerning telling kids the truth?
I ask because I know of some activists initiating "outreach" in schools. I'm certain no one intends to pass out graphic literature to very young (or any) kids… I think plans are to distribute (or make available) cards that read: Google Vegan — or Search Factory Farms — Animal Rights, etc. So at what point I wonder, would this be over stepping good judgement?
If I hand a flyer to a 15 year old advertising money off on some grilled animal part or mammary secretion, it would be perfectly acceptable. But if I offer reality in the form of encouraging knowledge seeking- the effort could possibily end in calamity – (or at least in handcuffs).
I know the proper way to reach school kids is through the education system – But I've spoken to many vegan/AR teachers and they say it's almost impossible to get schools to approve this "agenda". So are we all destined to somehow "figure it out" in our 20's, 30's or later? Or should activists just forge against the 4H types and get the word out which ever way they can?
I would love your thoughts on this Mary… or anyone else reading here – as I'm absolutely stumped as to what the right thing to do is…
thanks 🙂
Like Alex, I'm surprised to hear you say you're not a "Francione-style abolitionist." I can't say I agree with Francione 100 percent on every subject, but he's strongly influenced my thinking … and I always thought his influence came across very strongly in your blog too. Am I missing some background?
Hey Mary,
Great post. I.too,am a former Long Islander living in Florida. I miss NY everyday. I think you make valid points about 4-H and similar programs for children. My oldest daughter raised a pig for her agriculture class in high school. He was a wonderful pig!We loved him. When my daughter found out he was to be sold and butchered at the fair she refused. We found him a home where he could live out his life. And yes,when she informed me of her "project" I tried to discourage it,but she did not realise the consequences for the pig.
Have a great day!
I’d like to point out two things regarding “abolition” and “abolitionists”:
1. “Francione-style abolitionists” (I group of which I’m a core member and to which I refer as merely “abolitionists”; no qualifiers necessary) can and do think critically. In fact, we generally see Francione’s theory as wonderfully consistent, coherent, and in alignment with the realities of modern economics, legal theory, slave history, human psychology, moral philosophy, and sociology, just to name a few of the areas that the theory is consistent with if one’s goal is the abolition of animal slavery and murder.
Indeed, it is noteworthy, for such a tiny group as “Francione-style abolitionists”, how much we’re made up of people with very strong backgrounds in critical thinking. To wit: Gary Francione himself has been a philosophy and law professor for at least two decades. Roger Yates is a sociology professor. Bob Torres holds a doctorate in sociology. David Langlois is a doctoral student of philosophy at Harvard. Vincent Guihan is a doctoral student. Corey Wrenn is a doctoral student in sociology. I have been a partner in a CPA firm for 10 years. A couple of others of us have strong backgrounds in philosophy (BS or BA in philosophy or the equivalent). None of us is a “Francione-style abolitionist” because we want “club membership”, but simply because we greatly admire how logically and empirically coherent the entire abolitionist approach is. Indeed, it is a *perfect reflection* of what people (vegans and non-vegans) already think when it comes to humans and their right not to be enslaved and murdered.
I’m not bringing up academic credentials to get into a contest about who has the most academics or “critical thinkers” on their side. After all, we live in an extremely speciesist society where 99% of all academics are confirmed speciesists and are as acculturated as grade school drop-outs when it comes to nonhuman beings. My point is that “Francione-style abolitionists” (or, more properly, abolitionists) are not a collection of brainwashed cult members unaccustomed to thinking out of the box. The truth is that we’ve thought critically so far outside of the box of acculturation, so independently, as to think of nonhumans and their right to not be enslaved and murdered *exactly* as we do humans; and we’ve looked to the 19th century model of slavery abolitionists as a great, perhaps even perfect, role model of how to achieve our goal.
2. Mary, you said:
“I want humans to stop using sentient nonhumans for their own gain. I want humans to stop trying to "manage" any and everyone whom they deem is a "nuisance." I want humans to realize that animals have lives and interests of their own, and their own freedom is one of those interests. I want humans to stop viewing animals as means to an end of some sort. Just as women don't exist for men, sentient nonhumans don't exist for humans. I am an abolitionist.”
While I think there is a vast difference between you and Ingrid Newkirk or Bruce Friedrich or Wayne Pacelle, under your above definition, PETA and Wayne Pacelle are “abolitionists.” Needless to say, claiming that you want humans to leave animals alone (which is all you really say there) does not make you an abolitionist by any stretch of the imagination.
If you want to make up new “categories” of “abolitionists”, fine (after all, what can I do about it?), but you might want to hone the definition into one that at least excludes *some* new welfarists.
Wonderful post, Mary! I have lately been reading some agriculture blog posts about 4-H which have left me feeling sad—one in particular in which a parent expressed pride in the fact that his child understood that these animals were raised to be killed. Your post added a whole new element to my understanding of just how horrifying this is.
And in my opinion, your critical and independent thinking make you a much-needed voice for the abolitionist perspective. I don’t always agree with you, but I always learn from you.
Please keep posting!
Did you know 4H kids are required to sell the "food" animals they raise? It's in a contract that they (well, their parents) sign before they start. They must sell the animals back. It's not just trying to program kids to accept the death of individuals they love: it's forcing them to. There is no choice in the matter, no matter how much the children scream and cry and fight. Imagine being a 10 year old child and being told that you must send the friend you've reared from birth to a grisly death, and not being able to do anything about it :shudder:. 4H's handbook is also full of wonderful advice like … "don't allow the children to use human terms to apply to the animals." They use language as a weapon, changing words like "mother" to "dam" or using assorted euphemisms to refer to animals as what pre-packed flesh product they'll eventually end up as. I think a lot of people believe the 4H program is for "hicks", but they're smart and ruthless. Their literature reads like a cult handbook in many, many places.
As for the other, as with anything, there are some people of the abolitionist school that are brilliant, flexible, creative and willing to change their views to reflect new ideas and new philosophies. There are other who are not so much about, and who rightfully deserve the moniker Franzombies. I happen to hold with Francione on a lot of key issues. His writing changed my view of the world permanently. Others, like Bob Torres, need to remove the sticks from their unmentionables and realize that not everyone will agree about everything and that booting them off a message board for wondering about the need for such control is a silly response. No one is debating that these people are brilliant, but brilliance doesn't always equal right. No matter how many PhDs you have, you are still capable of being very, very wrong. Many people who spend their lives in academia are actually less likely to think outside the box because they've spent decades constructing said box. I've experienced more than my fair share of such brainwashed clubbishness at the hands of "abolitionists". I've also experienced how smart and kind and interesting they can be. As with anything, it's a toss up.
I just came over from animalrights.change.org, and I'm so inspired! "I want humans to stop using sentient nonhumans for their own gain." That's the heart of it, and I thank you. I look forward to going through the rest of your posts. Peace!
I was permanently banned from Bob Torres' forum also, Jennie, but it had nothing to do with abolition.
Again, my point was merely to counter Mary's implication that abolitionists are, as a group, blind acceptors of dogma who cannot think critically, not to hail PhDs has having any more grip on reality than truck drivers or to say all abolitionists are brilliant and creative. It appears that you agree with me, albiet you've had your unpleasant run-ins with a few abolitionists.
In the movement against human slavery, there were two camps: gradualists and abolitionists. Both claimed to oppose slavery, with gradualists supporting reforms and abolitionists rejecting reforms. In the movement against the slavery of other animals, the same terms apply. In addition, those who support animal rights not only want to end nonhuman slavery, but also want basic rights extended from human to nonhuman animals.
I'm an abolitionist and an animal rights advocate.
"We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." – Elie Wiesel
About choosing sides… For me, it's not always that simple, as some advocates support some views (or strategies) that I agree with, but not others. And I must be guilty at times too of not advocating in just the "right" way. Often biting my tongue so as to not scare away a view that is leaning to "my side". I've found if I press with the full presentation head on – for many it's just too overwhelming. A lot of people need to mull and digest the information in increments. Doesn't mean my intent isn't "vegan abolitionism NOW" – Just means I'm pacing the argument to be effective… And that I'm only on "part one" of what needs to be said. It's just impossible to present every facet of the issue at once. A little bit of non-judgemental breathing room within "the movement" would be a god-send to us all.
But for me, the thing that keeps it all together (while walking on factory farmed eggshells) is my belief that all of us, no matter how "right" or "wrong" our approach – We all want the same goal – To end the ownership of animals. Whatever forms of "compromise" or disagreement it takes from now to then should be tempered with some tolerance for different views. Abolitionists (of all varieties) are not each other's "enemy" by any stretch…
Geri Fowler – What a great story! 🙂 Just wondering – what was the little (lucky) pigs name?
Francione influenced my stance on several AR issues tremendously.
There are two (related) main areas where I disagree with him:
1. It is obvious to me that due to the circumstances "violent" means are justifiable.
2. I no longer believe that peaceful rationality can bring a meaningful change. Speaking rationally to irrational (and selfish) creatures is a lost cause.
I just listened to Francione last audio commentary on violence and felt a need to say few things:
1. Francione is wrong: in terms of demand, there is a huge difference between the food industry and the vivisection industry. It is a different demand: if tomorrow all labs will be vanished, no human (but the industry people) will care.
2. Violence do work when threatening/mudslinging is being made on vivisectors and their families. The campaign against HLS proved it.
3. Still, I rather activists to act in the food area (where I agree violence is not affective) because 99% of the exploitation is there.
4. The argument about the harm caused by property destruction is very problematic (but I rather not get in to it here).
you are so inspiring keep it up!