On Infighting and Asceticism
Riddle me this: When is infighting infighting, and when is asceticism asceticism?
Infighting
I have four questions as a result of the recent discussions about counter-protests, infighting, Will Potter and lettuce:
- Is it infighting when the groups don’t have the same goals? (I’m thinking Dan might have something to say about this one.) Maybe better wording is: when the individuals in the groups don’t feel that, from the behavior of the groups, they’re not on the same "team." Then again, maybe it’s infighting to you if it’s your (perceived) defects that are being highlighted? What do you think?
- Does it matter whether the groups have the same goals if the FBI lumps us all together, anyway? (And by the way, so does most of the non-animal rights-leaning world, with the exception of the speciesists who are paying attention, some of whom read this blog.)
- How is a movement supposed to evolve and grow without taking on what is considered "the norm" and pointing out its shortcomings? Are we supposed to not point them out, keep quiet, and accept that no organization is perfect? Why is pointing out what you disagree with or object to either a sign of weakness (of the movement) or some kind of unwarranted, vicious attack rather than a sign that some people want to move in a different direction (or back to the movement’s roots, in this case) and are eager to do that? (And I suppose there really are some vicious attacks).
- What is the most effective (loaded phrase, I know) way to take on a behemoth that represents all of us even if it doesn’t represent us as individuals? Is there a wrong way to do it?
I am not a member of PeTA, FoA or HSUS. And this isn’t really about them; it’s about, as Roger
has pointed out several times, "the evolution and maturity of animal
advocacy." Is that what we’re in the midst of, or is it really
infighting?
Asceticism
Mark Bittman
thinks we all should be eating a lot less "meat." He sees no injustice
in the way we use animals for food, but he does often point out the
many reasons that eating (large quantities of) animals isn’t a good
idea (bad for the planet and the health, for instance).
In his "Rich, Luxurious, French (Not to Mention Vegetarian)," we learn about La Zucca,
a restaurant in Nice that serves "no meat or fish," but has "sizable
portions . . . and extremely rich food." Now, we all know that richness
is easy when you use eggs and milk products, so I’m not surprised that
the restaurant "readily satisfies omnivores."
There are two things that struck me:
- The owners grew up eating animals ("meat"), as most of us did,
and then they became "animal lovers." " Finally," says one of them, "We
said ‘basta!’ to trying to pretend the slices did not come from a nice
little pig.” That’s great. Now what they need to realize is that their
beloved cheese is sibling of a nice little calf. But, like most
vegetarians, they’re probably not thinking about that because cheese
and eggs simply don’t scream someone was exploited, tortured and slaughtered for me! - Bittman ends with:
"The results are
delicious, and you leave completely stuffed. It is true that fish and
meat are not served, but neither is there much fuss about their
absence. And the abundance of local cheese, eggs and cream — this is no
more a vegan-friendly restaurant than any of its neighbors — is a
constant reminder that vegetarianism is far from synonymous with
asceticism."I like that Bittman doesn’t pretend vegetarianism and veganism
aren’t really related. I also like that he (I think unintentionally)
reminds us of an important myth we must constantly bust: that the way
we eat is some form of extreme self-denial (the definition of
asceticism, and it’s usually practiced for religious reasons). If you
don’t want to kill anyone unless you absolutely have to, would you say
you’re denying yourself the pleasure of killing them or having them
killed for you? Are you experiencing deprivation when you don’t eat
animals if you don’t want to? Perhaps some vegans really are
denying themselves. It’s the stereotype that, like most stereotypes, is
incorrect, and we must be vigilant in our conversations and writing and
remind the world that we enjoy what we eat. It’s easy on both the
palate and the conscience.
What do you think about the asceticism stereotype? Does it apply to you?
On “Infighting”:
People who call outside criticism “infighting” do so because they do not want to be criticized and do not want a legitimate debate about what an abolitionist movement and vision should look like. Calling it “infighting” is an attempt to stifle dissent.
The truth is that there is no “infighting” within one large, multi-organizational group. There is only outside criticism of the animal welfare movement (made up of PETA, HSUS, Farm Sanctuary, et al) by the abolitionist movement (I’m avoiding the phrase “animal rights” because it has been rendered useless by being considered to mean everything, and therefore meaning nothing). The abolitionist movement, which differs from the other animal movement(s) in that we refuse to promote welfare reform or animal products, is still very small, but growing fast.
To lump traditional animal welfarism (e.g. HSUS) and new welfarism (e.g. PETA, Farm Sanctuary, “Vegan” Outreach) with abolitionism (e.g. Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary) as “one big movement” is to completely misunderstand what is going on. It’s true that there is some overlap between what HSUS and PETA does (i.e. promote welfare reform) and some overlap between what PETA and Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary does (i.e. promote veganism), but the three groups are *vastly different* from each other in their core beliefs and principles and in *most* of their activities, and there is currently absolutely* no* overlap between HSUS and Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary in principles, theory, or practice.
The bottom line is that there are three different ideas and three different types of groups that represent those three different ideas. One of those ideas, traditional welfare, is not a social movement because it’s been the status quo for decades. Another of those ideas, new welfarism (using welfare reform to achieve abolition), is new as of the 1980s and is a movement that is currently promoting “happy animal products”. The third of those ideas, abolitionism, started in the mid-1990s with Gary Francione’s books, and is a new and growing movement that started at the end of 2006 that promotes veganism as a moral baseline.
Am i depriving myself by not telling racist or sexist jokes?
Perhaps it's like when people talk about extremism, as tho it's always a bad thing…yet we're all extremists. An extremist has an unwavering perspective on something.
I'm an extremist when it comes to rape. It should *never* be done. I don't feel there is any reason to ever have a conversation trying to justify rape. That makes me an extremist. (Yet i doubt anyone would make this out to be a bad thing, call me closed-minded or a bigot towards rapists. Which i obviously am.)
Veganism is described with some frequency as being extreme, but it's only from the perspective of an oppressive mentality. An unenlightened person, who doesn't fully understand the message behind veganism.
Just as one cannot participate in racist or sexist behavior, if one deeply disagrees with these things; if one opposes exploitation, then they cannot (or at least should not) participate in exploitative practices, which being an omnivore is.
Or, maybe it is deprivation. But at the same time, perhaps deprivation can also be a good thing. If i "deprived" myself from ever smoking crack cocain, how many would agree that it is a bad choice?
Words are funny things. =)
Along the lines of Dave's comment, I imagine that freeing slaves whom one purchased and relied heavily on in the antebellum American South was quite a sacrifice for plantation ownersâ¦one might call it an ascetic thing to do. It certainly seems much more ascetic to free slaves if the law doesn't require you to than to go vegan by replacing meat, dairy, and eggs with non-animal alternatives, which is really quite easy. But as Dave's comment implies, how easy it is really is not the issue; rather, the issue is that exploiting animals (i.e., not being vegan) is wrong.
"People who call outside criticism “infighting” do so because they do not want to be criticized and do not want a legitimate debate about what an abolitionist movement and vision should look like. Calling it “infighting” is an attempt to stifle dissent."
This is not true. Not for myself, anyway. I see it like this…
Why continually throw buckets of water on a giant pyre, in attempt to extinguish the rampant and pervasive fire that is the institution of welfarism? The fire is too big at this point for the abolitionists to control by suppression or through damage control. And if one spends much of their time and energy in the uphill (losing) battle of trying to extinguish it, that is much less energy spent on building one's own fire, that might actually grow to eventually outshine the other…in a positive way…drawing more people in to the warmth and wonder that "could be" abolitionism.
I'm not interested in pushing abolition down (stifling it), but in raising it up. With integrity.
There is nothing wrong with paving a positive path to achieve the goals of abolitionism. Why not concentrate on getting the word out there without even mentioning the likes of welfarists. I do it all the time. If a family member or friend asks about my vegan lifestyle, somehow I manage to explain myself sufficiently without even uttering the word "PeTA" or "welfarist" or "Singer." Once I explain the factory farm situation and how eggs and milk are just as bad as meat, they begin to understand the difference between treatment and use (along with a quick chat on the property rights regarding nonhuman animals). Just because one rejects the idea of welfarism (even vehemently), doesn't mean that it must be harped upon in order to effectively communicate the message of veganism.
What I don't understand, is that every day PeTA is out there attempting to change the animal (corporate) laws and regulations to include pointless welfare reforms. If one is so bent out of shape over one PeTA girl standing outside of one KFC, to the point that one actively organizes a counter protest…why not go to the source, and try to stop welfarism at its root? Get actively involved in the legal process and thwart their efforts by aggressively demanding a stop to their useless campaigns and reforms. Show up wherever they show up to lobby these reforms, etc. I mean if you really want to stop them…instead of all the harsh words, get active and do something that is productive and effective and stops welfarism at its very root. Isn't that what abolition is all about? –getting to the root of the problem? Why take action just in front of KFC? Why only there? Why not wherever welfarists show up? (Note that I'm not advocating this route. I just don't understand the mentality of protesting welfarists in one small, almost insignificant, instance and not in all the others.)
If the abolitionist movement only began in 2006 and is only two years in the making, then one cannot state with proof that the abolitionist movement will fail if it does not fiercely and furiously address the welfarists using passive-aggressive criticism and verbal (and on the rare arbitrary occasion, physical) counter activism.
A pillar cannot stand strong when built upon the established foundation of another corrupt pillar. It's time the abolition movement built a solid foundation of its own, without wasting time chipping away at another.
I think that once someone does the thinking about animal exploitation – The only rational conclusion is a simple one: don't exploit…… Which is why the subject is avoided with such ferocity. Most already "know" the answer – but they see only the negatives in the solution. To avoid the conclusions and dreaded "abnegation" they "switch off", "dis-connect" and commit physiological suicide…… "Let's rationalize" or better yet "not talk of it at all".
Now, if I choose to live my life based on consistent, knowable values – To them it appears as "sacrifice" or "extreme". Since when did adhering to ones moral code (especially when it requires just "NOT to do something harmful") become "extreme"?
Eating animals is ethical cowardice. Some think the trade-off is equitable -In their case….. they're probably right.
Bunny:
Abolitionists are doing vegan education and outreach outside of blogs and forums. Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary does a lot of personal education with groups who visit the sanctuary every weekend (weather permitting). I’ve been on the tours a couple of times and they discuss all of the problems with “happy eggs” and “happy dairy”, etc. The tours are excellent! PPS also has put up an abolitionist billboard on one of the busiest streets in Denver during the National Western Stock Show and Rodeo for the past two years. PPS has also sponsored abolitionist newspaper advertisements in the Denver Post and the LA Times.
Vegan Freak Radio is abolitionist. Compassionate Cooks is abolitionist. Tribe of Heart is abolitionist. None of these organizations/individuals support welfare reform; they all do vegan education only.
Some of us, myself included, are geographically isolated and do not live in places that one would ever see a P-TA campaign. Bob and Jenna Torres are at least somewhat geographically isolated; therefore most of their advocacy is done via podcast and forum. Most of my advocacy is via blogs and forums (due to geographical isolation). I also help PPS with their accounting and compliance.
The point is that abolitionists do a lot of advocacy, both on-line and out in public. It’s just that we’re not nearly as large and financially powerful as welfarist organizations, largely because we are very new. Also, what you see of it is probably in your blog and forum visits. If it weren’t for the Net, I seriously doubt that any abolitionist movement would exist. One of the reasons an abolitionist movement does currently exist and continues to rapidly grow is because we are able to communicate and network so much on the Net. Dissent and criticism cannot be stifled by the big organizations like it could 10 years ago. And so the cyber-criticism will continue as part of the effort to build a viable abolitionist movement.
some "infighting"…. http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/Newsletter/archives/sep2005/hsus.htm
Dan, I realize that there are abolitionist pockets of intense vegan advocacy out there whose members are doing fine work. But the overlying and predominant theme of the abolitionist approach to vegan education is strongly prefaced by the extreme criticism of welfarism (do you not agree?). Francione says it himself outright in his books, essays, and posts – it's one of his major tenets. That the current welfarist paradigm must be challenged and crushed in order for the abolitionist paradigm to reign and flourish in order that all regular folks may go forth and be vegan. And most (not all) abolitionists are following suite by making it their prime goal to focus their efforts on the harshly negative criticism of welfarism.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that welfarism is not making meaningful advancements for animal rights. It's true. But the question that begs to be asked by abolitionists is — will this major criticism against the welfarists win over more people to veganism than otherwise, and will it really bring down the evil forces of welfarism? I don't think so. And my opinion on this is based on experience…approaching vegan education in the past by talking to people (in person or online) about welfarism, and doing so in a disparaging way. I got nowhere fast. Really fast. Why? Because people don't react well to negativity or accusation; they somehow (whether consciously or subconsciously) perceive the connection that a vicious attack on welfarism is an attack on they themselves and their lifestyle choices. If the whole point of true vegan advocacy is to pull people in to veganism through educating the general populace and most importantly *shifting their perspective* about the use of animals in a way that they start to understand the importance of it, then we would probably do well to take into consideration the fact that the focus on negative criticism of welfarism is pushing away more people than drawing them in.
There was (believe it or not) a time before PeTA and other welfarists. They weren't always around. If you wanted to educate someone about veganism back in the 1700s (hypothetically speaking), before these welfarist folks came along, how would you shift someone's perspective about animals? Because really, the current institutions that have ensconced themselves in our world today (factory farms, welfarism, etc.) didn't exist, so pointing fingers at these institutions couldn't have been used as leverage to educate. It's the use of animals that is morally wrong, period, regardless of the cultural norms of the age. So the persuasive stance that one takes to educate should be a universal stance and argument that could be used at any point in the past human history of meat and dairy consumption from the beginning of civilization.
So I guess if I chiseled down the point I'm trying to communicate, it is more about focusing on what approach will essentially be most effective toward the goal of abolition: spending time harassing and criticizing welfarism (consequently pushing away a high percentage of potential candidates for veganism) OR spending time spreading a positive message about veganism that stands alone on a strong solid foundation of its own creation, and drawing in new people based on its own persuasive merits (including an argument of timeless and *universal self-evident rights* for animals) instead of based on the shortcomings of other individuals and institutions…?
Thanks, Roger. Here's my favorite passage:
"If HSUS is right that through education and legislation alone this movement can win justice for animals (or really, according to their stated goals, improve the welfare of the animal slaves), then why are more animals being tortured to death today than 20 years ago? Why is the movement barely able to do anything more than increase the size of the cages and bring about 'humane slaughter'? Why is the movement helping corporations to polish their public image and mitigate consumer guilt over eating murdered animals?"
"If HSUS is right that through education and legislation alone this movement can win justice for animals (or really, according to their stated goals, improve the welfare of the animal slaves), then why are more animals being tortured to death today than 20 years ago? Why is the movement barely able to do anything more than increase the size of the cages and bring about 'humane slaughter'? Why is the movement helping corporations to polish their public image and mitigate consumer guilt over eating murdered animals?"
Yes, I'm not surprised that this excerpt leapt out at you. I imagine you could deconstructed this all day! For example, in a brief passage, they include 'the movement' twice and 'this movement' once. They are following political scientist Robert Garner in assuming that 'the movement' has in it animal welfarists, animal rightists and animal liberationists in the same way as feminism as different strands within 'it'. However, once we question that assumption, all they say collapses, on the one hand, and becomes somewhat clearer, on the other.
The truth is that we have to realise that the members of 'this movement' do not necessarily think the same things about human-nonhuman relations and neither do 'we' want the same things. For example, there are plenty of people in 'this movement' not comfortable with the logic in animal rights philosophy which rules out the owning of pets. Very many appear uncomfortable with the language of rights judging by the few who use it, preferring cruelty-claims instead.
Perhaps some people campaign for bigger cages because that is ALL they want – just as some anti-bloodsports campaigners are happy to be meat eaters and see no connection between sport hunting and flesh consumption. I believe that we would see 'this movement' rapidly and dramatically shrink were factory farming ended leaving 'just' extensive systems of use.
After reading all the comments, I have to say I agree so very much with what Bunny stated. Since I was first introduced to, and found out about the abolitionists, they have not made the most heart warming impression upon me. I felt that way right from the beginning, and feel even stronger in my views towards them now. I wish not to argue and fight with them on the forums. That is something many of them seem to live for. To sit on forums all day and night long chomping on bananas and saying the same things over and over and over. I have to say that before I ever read any of their words…when it comes to being an "abolitionist"…. my own views and values are so very similar and have been for quite some time. With that said, I find it sad that they put off so many. So many that are so close in views and values and most of all…our wants and vision for this world… one where all living things live naturally, safely, and free from man's grasp and control over all things living (meaning both plant and animal).
One of the very first things I saw when introduced was the constant drumming on and on about all things anti-welfarist… Not ideas, or ways to go out and slowly make change…but hostility towards the way things are. I agree…things are not right…but how many times do I need to hear it? How many times does blame have to be cast. What good does it do. Honestly… is that a way to bring about change?…the change they seek?
I saw people degraded for their own views. There has never been a "warm and fuzzy, open-armed" welcome to other vegans or veggies that come across their posts or boards. It's as if they expect all to be on the same page right from the beginning. I found it disheartening that those that are so close in values and thoughts, their own wants and wishes, but do not agree 100% with the words of Francione, are constantly being both put down and insulted.
Are we not all vegans? Do we not seek the same wants for this planet and those that reside upon it? As for myself, I am vegan because I have a place deep within my heart that desires both peace and love for all things living. Of course i have anger and other emotions…for those are the very emotions that pushed me into becoming vegan in the first place. An anger at man's (er…and woman's…never call me sexist 🙂 use and abuse of animals and our planet for their own consumption and down right gluttony. Yet I do not think that putting people down for not yet understanding the meaning and wishes of the abolitionist movement will allow it to grow beyond anything more than a few pseudo-intellectuals that bring up the same made up catch phrases over and over again.
It was my first impression of the abolitionists where I saw this going on and instead of them changing my views towards them, they've only made them more concrete if not deeper and stronger. The more I saw and read, the more I know I was correct from the beginning. That this "movement" is not one at all. It's more of a sound board for those that "dream" of a better world… a dream that I myself share… yet they only think they can achieve that world if they constantly put down the same groups and the same people over and over again.
I also agree with Bunny's point where she was talking about education. Is it not better to educate one? Teach them your views and values instead of immediately jumping down their throats and telling them that all they think and believe are wrong? Is there not a better way? It DOES in fact make one feel as though they do not want to stick around and hear the rest… it makes most people close down.
I've seen GF himself resort to name calling and even bashing other people's own intellectual or education level. Insulting them instead of teaching them….some that were so very close to his own views… yet he felt it better to resort to name calling and putting them down instead of reaching out to them. I found that to be very "un-vegan"…as I believe that being vegan is a thing of peace in us. What I saw was nothing with regards to "peace" or for that matter…a teacher doing what he/she should do from the start….teach others. There's never been a teacher or professor that I encountered in my lifetime that was able to teach me a thing or reach either my brain or my heart…if I felt they were putting me down. Not one. I found what GF did to be quite immature and I quickly lost a lot of respect for him. I've gained back a bit over the past few weeks, but still what he said and did to others lingers. I saw what he is capable of. The sad part is that those he was insulting, were so close to his own views and values. I see the very same things in many that just agree with him 100%. Those that never come up with their own opinions or thoughts on what being an abolitionist means. Personally, I'd rather see all continue to bring new ideas to the table. It's called "growing"… and that in fact is something I find to be very healthy..for one's mind…one's soul…and for the very movement that to me…seems to have "no movement" at all.
Einstein once said: "Insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results"…. From what I see…the same things are being said over and over. Maybe it's just me. So… in over 9 months of reading about abolitionists, what has changed? What has taken place to make even the slightest change for the ones we all care about so much…the ANIMALS!
It's one thing to "debate" as I feel debating is good. Yet it's another thing… all the way on the other end of the spectrum in what I myself believe, when it comes to constantly casting blame and insulting others. it just does not work nor do a thing for me. It never has and it never will. I am open to "change"… as I know I myself have changed so very much over the years with my wants and wishes for our world. That is something I can live with…Change. I may not be as smart, or even as eloquent in my words as compared to many. Big words and catch phrases so not impress me. Working together to make a change… well that to me is one I'll continue to think can in fact happen. If I did not believe that. I'd have no better world to hope for.
-david
I think it is infighting when you've got the same tired arguments being rehashed ad nauseum, with no progress being made, and no real discussion occurring. When it looks pointless, it likely is.
Deb. The notion of "infighting" means we are all "in" the same thing. I am not in league with KFC. I am not wanting to push KFC to gas millions of chickens. I am not pretending that Peter Singer is a rights-based theorist when he himself insists that he is not.
I am not calling myself an animal welfarist because I do not subscribe to animal welfare philosophy. If those who do not subscribe to animal rights thinking stopped confusing everyone by calling themselves by a name they ideological oppose, we may be able to move on a little.
Once that is done, maybe we can establish an animal rights movement based on animal rights philosophy. One which bases its fundamental claims on rights-based thinking.
"I think it is infighting when you've got the same tired arguments being rehashed ad nauseum, with no progress being made, and no real discussion occurring. When it looks pointless, it likely is."
To describe what Gary Francione (and others) do as "rehashing tried arguments…with no progress being made” is ridiculous. If it wasn't for Gary Francione's relentless determination to midwife the birth of a genuine abolitionist movement, there would *be* no abolitionist movement.
The new welfarists' call for unity is not offered in good faith, for they have no intention of seriously modifying their approach. What they really want is for abolitionists to pathetically self-integrate into the corporate welfarist movement. They try to achieve this, not by actually addressing the abolitionist critique of welfarism (I've never seen a serious response to Francione's books by a corporate welfarist), but by relying on misrepresentation and distortion (of abolitionism) in particular, and on the appalling integrative power of corporate welfarism in general.
It is, in my judgment, radically mistaken to suppose that the critique of injustice must always have a "positive" aspect. For what happens when injustice is so deeply entrenched and pervasive that only critique is possible? In this situation must we stop protesting injustice because "no progress [can be] made"? Of course we shouldn't.
It is indispensably necessary to protest new welfarism so that it be know, or just so that it be true, that someone is bothered that injustice is being done to animals in the name of animal rights.
In the absence of a intelligible possibility that we *could* reconcile new welfarism and abolitionism, the call for unity is vacuous. Yet, as Dan pointed out, the critique of new welfarism is inherent to abolitionism; the latter necessarily requires the rejection of the former. Therefore, no unity between new welfarism and abolitionism is possible. Therefore, the call for movement unity, misleadingly characterized by new welfarists as "infighting", is vacuous.
I don't deprive myself as a vegan. My veganism is filled with tasty food. If I deprive myself of anything, it's the guilt that comes with living a nonvegan life.
I am a member of PETA, FoA, and the HSUS. Being a member doesn't mean I agree with every campaign. It means I'm willing to send a small fraction of my income to an organization I sometimes support. I'm also a member of many other organizations, both for animal and human rights. I don't support everything they do, either. For example, I send a bit of money to my alumni association every year, but there's a lot about my former university that I dislike and don't support. My criticism is just as valid as a nonmember's criticism.
It's "infighting" or not depending on your vantage point. If you truly think the goals are so dissimilar that there are two separate movements, one welfarism and one abolition, then it's not infighting. If you think the goals are similar and part of one larger movement, then it's infighting. Personally, I think the line between welfarism and abolition is a fuzzy line, not a bright line.
"In the absence of a intelligible possibility that we *could* reconcile new welfarism and abolitionism, the call for unity is vacuous. Yet, as Dan pointed out, the critique of new welfarism is inherent to abolitionism; the latter necessarily requires the rejection of the former. Therefore, no unity between new welfarism and abolitionism is possible. Therefore, the call for movement unity, misleadingly characterized by new welfarists as "infighting", is vacuous."
I agree that abolitionism and welfarism cannot unite because their messages are diametrically opposed in many ways. However, that does not mean that the message of abolitionism cannot stand strong on its own without the harsh critique of welfarism being at the forefront of the movement's advocacy; it's almost doing it an injustice to say that it can not. Abolitionism has an awesomely solid message that needn't use criticism of welfarism as a perpetual crutch in order for it to stand on its own two strong feet.
I'm not saying that the pervasive problems of welfarism should not be addressed at all. I just think that it can be addressed as *part* of vegan education, if need be, and progressively disclosed in a positive way after other more important universal aspects are covered. In my experience, I don't find that it is necessary to make that component (criticism of welfarism) the core of the vegan message. In fact, in many instances, it seems to be counterproductive in drawing folks over to veganism.
Each individual within a movement has a meaningful purpose and unique stellar skills that befit the movement. The fact that there are one or two folks who choose to spend their time maturely analyzing the ills of welfarism within a theoretical framework and openly critiquing it is great. I think there is substantial meaning and purpose in that. I just don't think that a harsh critique of welfarism needs to be the predominant theme or message of abolitionist advocacy in general, and that it actually works against the movement from what I have seen, especially if it is carried out in a very disparaging and immature way.
roger, I was vague, it is true, but I'm surprised that you feel that there's no infighting within the abolitionist movement. I have seen plenty of fighting within the abolitionist movement, and no I'm not confused as to whether something is abolitionist or welfare-reform-seeking. Of course, there is a definite tendency for arguments to be resolved as "if you don't agree 100%, then you are a new welfarist" so I suppose that from that perspective, infighting within the abolitionist movement is impossible. Regardless, I do believe that there is infighting in every movement. My point was more that it goes from being a valuable critique/analysis/etc to pointless when you are having the same conversation/disagreement with the same people, and each side is already entrenched. What's the point? But yes, by your definition infighting is impossible, since you'd immediately see someone with whom you don't agree as not being "in" your movement.
And hey, animal rights is a term that is confused by more than the existence of peta. I heard just the other day a vegan talk about why they were not for animal rights…and it had to do with believing that legislation accomplishes nothing (but welfare reforms). I think that "rights" is a term bound to confuse the majority.
So, find a new term, and create the movement. I don't see why it should wait for peta to declare that they're not for animal rights. We know that isn't happening anytime soon, nor is this confusion over what "rights" means going away. Seems counter productive to wait for it to do so.
James, my comment was general, as I explained already to roger. I'm not making a call for unity, so if you read that into my three sentences as well, all I can say is that is interesting. There were an awful lot of assumptions going on as to what people wanted to think I was saying. I don't get it, but if it makes you happy to debate points I wasn't making, feel free.
Nah… did not take very long. Those of you that smoke GF cigars all day are already doing what this very thread is about. Sad that you do not even see it. As I stated long ago… Super Vegans! Ones that are MORE vegan than the rest of us. Who would you be if not our hero's of the AR world? The animals you say you care so very much about thank you. As do I. Maybe it's just my own theory.
Perhaps I can try to address a few points at once – and attempt to rescue something positive from this interesting conversation. I DO think bunny is onto something important when talking about how abolitionists could accentuate the positives a little more while accepting that abolitionists are bound to have to incorporate a critique of welfarism to explain the view.
Now – “Super vegans”? I think an important point is made by that. Abolitionists do not regard themselves as “super vegans” – they are the ONLY ones saying vegan is easy, that vegans are nor special people and everyone in the ‘developed’ world can live as a vegan. Do members of the human rights movement say to each other, ‘You’ve just got to traffick a child now and then, don’t you?. No? Never? What, you one of those “super non-traffickers”, are ya?’
No, not super vegans, but consistent veganism as the moral baseline of a rights-based animal rights movement. I see the claim that failure to agree with Gary Francione 100% leaves one open to insult and attack – that would include me then, since I don’t agree 100% with GF and criticised him in my PhD thesis (criticism he’s seen). I really don’t think of abolitionism as a formation of purer than pure super vegans reading from a script.
Deb also makes the common claim that ‘”rights” is a term bound to confuse the majority.’ Animal advocates have told me this since the 1980s, and I guess we should not rule out the possibility. However – in the 1980s – I stupidly thought I had joined the animal rights movement only to quickly realise that rights-based philosophy and claims are merely a minute and marginalised part of it.
Now, we still struggle to even test out the notion that ‘”rights” is a term bound to confuse the majority.’ I have regularly been told by other advocates not to base my claims on rights because rights are ‘too abstract’. Cruelty claims, however, people understand. I have always replied (again since the 1980s and especially after reading Regan) that it is clear that at least some people want to try out this crazy idea of presenting a rights-based case about human-nonhuman relations. Some want to do this – many do not. So, I asked, how should we sort out what we call ourselves?
‘I know’, I’ve said innocently. ‘How about this – the campaigners want to make rights-based claims and have rights-based philosophy as the very foundation of their position call themselves “animal rights advocates” – please excuse the dreadful lack of imagination – and those who don’t want to do that – and those who ACTUALLY OPPOSE human or nonhuman rights – call themselves something else’. Silly me thought this was fair, reasonable and even logical.
So, Deb, it really is not the case that I reject people who do not agree with me. What I do is differentiate between people who make rights-based claims and those who do not. Not all of the former agree with each other as we’ve seen by looking at differences between Francione, Regan, Linzey and Dunayer. Some of these may not sit around the same table with each other, but they are rights-based theorists (and Ryder sometimes claims he is too).
We can see from this that we have a lot to sort out in order to present a rights-based perspective on human-nonhuman relations. This endeavour, however, is clouded and continually thwarted by the activities of advocates who insist on calling themselves animal rightists – or don’t care whether they are or not – even though they do not make rights-based claims or are opposed to them. Why people actually opposed to rights-based claims are happy to be called animal rightists, I have never really understood. They tend to say that philosophical differences are not so important – even though they know they are to animal rightists. One might think that is ‘divisive’ given that they think there is one movement made up of people with diverse views and methods.
Singer is the intriguing case. He told me not to waste my time with my ‘PeTA Petition’ asking the organisation not to call his Animal Liberation a book of animal rights philosophy and state: ‘If you only buy one animal rights book, it has to be this one’. I suspect that Singer wishes that Henry Spira had not called his organisation ‘Animal Rights International’. Singer prefers the language of ‘animal liberation’ and always has. Indeed, he has been praised for the consistency of his adherence to utilitarian principles held since the 1970s. Nevertheless, like other utilitarians, he will use the language of rights rhetorically but NEVER as a foundation of his ethics. I wonder whether he’s allowed the confusion about his position because he is keen to see rights-based ideas damaged? Perhaps he’s peeved because Regan calls his philosophy ‘morally bankrupt’ while Linzey calls it ‘indecent’. In turn, he has attacked the rule bound nature of rights-based thinking.
Due to my sociological background, I focus much attention on claims-making, as I’m sure is evident above. However, social movements are understood sociologically as claims-making enterprises. SMs make claims about the ‘problems’ they perceive and make claims about solutions. I believe that the refusal to regard nonhuman animals as rights bearers leads to their rights being systematically violated – this is the problem I see embedded within widespread cultural speciesism. Naturally, I wish to make rights-based claims about this issue. That’s all.
Excellent comments, Roger.
Regarding Peter Singer:
He is very sloppy with words in general, which demonstrates a disregard for clear communication and conceptual clarity in thought – not a virtue for anyone, but especially not a virtue for a university philosophy professor. Not only does his conflate rights with welfare and utilitarianism by using “rights” rhetorically (most people don’t know he’s being rhetorical), but he also confuses words like “compassionate” and “conscientious” by stating and implying that these words can mean just about anything people would like them to mean, including the meaning of their antonyms. Singer seems to be all for mixing “rights” with “welfare” and “compassionate” with “slaughtering.” The only thing Singer generally makes quite clear is that he doesn’t mind creating confusion and contradiction.
When used by the corporate welfarist movement, the words "unity" and "collaboration" denote pious fictions. The latter is a code word for passive obedience; and the former is an ideological construct used to disguise the incontestable opposition between regulation and abolition.
'”rights” is a term bound to confuse the majority.’
The rejection of conceptual clarity in claims-making is a veiled justification for the acceptance of the irrationality of the prevailing order.
Roger, you make a lot of good points, but the majority that I'm talking about are the regular people who associate "rights" with legal rights. You know, the ones with the tired assumption that we're trying to give cows the right to vote.
As soon as rights are mentioned, that's the reaction I get. Maybe that's more common here, but the fact that so many social justice movements have actually been about legal rights – whether for voting or whatever – does seem to lead to that assumption when discussing animal rights.
So, my point isn't that we should give it up and talk about cruelty and welfare, or that the moral/ethical argument of use itself is what confuses people, my point is actually that we should come up with a term that doesn't have an immediate association with legal rights. It takes a lot of explaining to get people to understand that you're talking about moral rights, at least in my experience.
My solution has been to avoid the issues around that word. I don't use the word "rights", but don't take that to mean I'm discussing cruelty. The very word "rights" is an obstacle, so I just go around it.
That's just my experience, of course. YMMV.
Deb.
I think you may be right about rights, especially in a North American context. I note that many NA's appear to have great problems thinking about moral as opposed to legal rights and talk about the former often quickly slides into talk about the latter.
I'm working on Donald Watson's suggestion that people have to be given time (be ripened up) to get used to new and challenging ideas. Peter Singer recognised this in the 1970s, suggesting that the term "animal liberation" may appear as a parody rather than a serious idea. When Singer wrote AL, the most popular vegetarian cafe in London was called "Cranks". So, things move on in terms of people's reaction to claims-making.
I am simply suggesting that some animal advocates have to engage in the same task with regard to rights-based claims. I'm pretty certain that many – probably most – animal advocates will choose NOT to make such claims on the grounds that making cruelty claims is easier and fits well with notions of 'recipient design' and 'frame alignment'.
In this sense, rightist DO make things harder for themselves by insisting – at this time – on making rights-based claims.
It just seems obvious to me that we can never know the general reaction to rights-based claims if (1) people rarely make them as the foundation of their ethic and (2) if they are distorted by advocates who merely use rights rhetorically.
I really think my perspective on this is based on the notion of what's fair.
All the best – Roger.
Although I’ve said that the term “animal rights” means everything now, and therefore means nothing, I said so in the context of why many of us use the word “abolition” to, for practical purposes, replace the term “animal rights”.
On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with educating people on what we mean by “animal rights”. For me, and most rights advocates, we mean BOTH moral and legal rights. We mean that animals currently HAVE the MORAL right not to be exploited and not to be property. We mean that animals OUGHT to have the LEGAL right that corresponds to the moral right not to be exploited and not to be property.
It is plainly absurd to suggest that we mean animals ought to have voting rights or other rights for which they don’t have a capacity, and such suggestions generally come from people who wouldn’t recognize a cogent argument if it hit them in the face – the most uneducated and unintelligent sectors of society. Such suggestions deserve nothing more than silence toward or ridicule of the person making such suggestions.
I think that most people agree that to describe animal use as a rights violation is to acknowledge a terribleness that is not otherwise apparent in a full description of it. But this terribleness is not captured when animal use is characterized merely in terms of cruelty. Cruelty claims take us *away* from rather than *to* moral reality.
I think that our claims must be hard and sober if they are to constitute a truthful recognition of the terrible meanining of animal exploitation. Only claims about rights violations, or abolition, constitute such a recognition.
Cruelty claims are uselessly idle. For these claims are not only fully intelligible to the status quo, they are part of it. This expains why these claims have changed nothing. Absurdly, defiance and acceptance have the same result, namely, a victory for the status quo.
Our claims must be a direct challenge to people to respond with commensurate seriousness, a seriousness which would necessarily entail their going vegan.
In other words: our claims must require not mere agreement but praxis.
"NOBODY expects the AR Inquisition!! Our chief weapon is theory…theory and accusation…accusation and theory…our TWO weapons are…"
Hee hee! Just kidding! 😉
Anyway, I was browsing a used book store the other day, and came across a shelf that was labeled in big, bold, black letters: ANIMAL RIGHTS.
Two copies of Temple Grandin's book resided there very innocently.
The average person is very far from understanding the true meaning of animal rights, unfortunately.
Again, though, to refrain from beating a dead horse (because that would be terrible and welfaristic), I won't drone on how animal rights can be explained in a way that does not drive away the would-be "convert." 🙂
I think it would be lovely if abolitionists discussed animal rights issues *without* hostility…
…a mature, productive, and respectful discourse that educates and inspires people to go vegan is most desirable.
However, THIS is the kind of bullshit I run across every day in various abolitionist circles…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAd-P6mDP30
This nice tidy little piece of inflammatory propaganda not only compares the animal welfarists with Nazis, but makes no bones about calling them Nazis outright. Nice. Really triumphant.
This attitude is NOT the exception–it does not float around the fringes of abolitionism, but unfortunately is reflective of a core belief for many of its followers – the belief that individuals who promote welfarism (whether intentionally or unintentionally) must be brutally vilified and reviled to the extreme in order for abolition to be attained. I mean, the accusations are so severe that you wonder if the abolitionists feel a lynching is in order (or worse). Shall we break out our torches?
I beleive Francione set the tone for this approach to eventually emerge. However, one must separate the visionary from his followers.
Francione did his extensive homework, and studied and wrote about the subject of animal rights with depth and understanding that is unique to HIM. And I think he's on the right track. His recently written pamphlet on veganism, I think, is excellent and the best one I have read thus far. It is less accusatory of the welfarists than was to be expected and doesn't dwell on the welfarist issue, but rather it emphasizes the more important issues surrounding veganism. It briefly touches on the problems of welfarism in a proportionately fair and accurate light (demonstrating the use and efficacy of progressive disclosure).
However, obviously, he has set the tone in the past to lay it thick on the welfarists, and those taking up the cause have seized upon it with such a vengeance. The existence of an extreme minority or subgroup of a particular unpopular ideology does not ensure its members are authentic and independent thinkers simply because their *adopted* views are divergent from the mainstream. They can still be sheeple, just on a more obscure level that lends to the illusion that they are free thinkers.
Francione has laid the framework for abolition and the *beginnings* of a path toward this hopeful end. But where his discussion and overall theory comes to its total encompassment does not indicate a dead end for further examination, exploration, and enlightenment on issues of veganism, animal rights, and especially animal advocacy approaches.
McActivists need to stop reciting and rehashing the thoughts of another (especially in a most vicious way). Instead, why not push ahead down the path employing independent thinking and a realistic understanding of what is going to *really* tip the scales in the favor of widespread veganism. It should be an iterative process. Always questioning…always reassessing…always analyzing and reanalyzing what leads to a balance of integrity and success.
Once again I myself find the words of Bunny to speak both the truth and to be most humbling. I too think and have stated many times, that instead of always playing “follow the leader” that much more “independent thought” needs to come to the hearts and minds of abolitionists. There is this constant drum beat of blame being cast upon those that embrace the “welfarist” movement. Do any stop and think that many of us came to become what we are right now, and what we wish for in this world, when WE OURSELVES were once on that same ship? Did most of the abolitionists go from being omni's to vegan in one day? I've seen and read the posts before…from many that call themselves Abolitionists. That told their stories of how long it took they themselves to get from point A…to point Z… and know what I saw? I saw stories full of excuses…as to WHY it took so long for they themselves to get to this point…to just become vegan. Even GF himself said it took him years to do so…don't believe me? Well he said it right there on ARCO.
Why not embrace those we want to teach? Why not TEACH them what we have learned? Why the constant blame cast upon them over and over. Most of you reading this…well YOU TOO were once a “welfarist”…. Are you THAT pure right now…in ALL that you do, that you feel it's a better use of your time to continue the blame? Would it not be better to try and reach out? To teach? To band together when there is even one that starts to “see” what we ourselves see?
Playing “follow the leader” and always blaming ones that are perhaps…lost…yet started…on the “right path…is not making this so called”movement” move along at all. Reaching out and teaching…HAS to be a better way. It has to. If not? Well…oatmeal will always be spit upon our laptops while we continue to make claims and cast theories. There are others out there that need to learn… that would LIKE to learn what “we” might be able to share with them. Yet I never see anyone extending an olive branch of “peace” and trying to do just that….reach them…teach them… I still read and hear..this constant blame…
It does no good…most of all…for the animals we all say we care about so very much….
The claim that abolitionists shouldn't hold the new welfarist movement responsible for what it does is based on a misunderstanding of the conditions under which it is reasonable to lay blame. Only if a movement does things unintentionally because of ignorance for it is not culpable would it make sense to say that it cannot be blamed. But the new welfarist movement obviously acts with intent – and that intent is informed by the thought that welfarism is somehow related to abolition. Yet Francione has shown that welfarism is not related to abolition; that, on the contrary, welfarism has an anti-abolition effect. Moreover, Francione's critique has been *suppressed* by the new welfarist movement.
Therefore, since the new welfarist movement cannot intelligibly claim that it acts unintentionally because of ignorance for which it is not culpable, it is perfectly proper to hold the welfarist movement responsible for what it does.
Perhaps the claim is not that it doesn't make sense to hold the new welfarist movement responsible for what it does, but that the effects of doing so are damaging. Yet the effect of the abolitionist critique of new welfarism has been the beginning of a debate the outcome of which will determine whether the animal movement continues to be dominated by welfarist corporations which do not challenge the property status of animals, or whether it changes into a politically viable abolitionist movement which will incrementally erode that paradigm.
The counterargument is that (some) people find the tone of this debate to be uncongenial. But anyone who rejects the abolitionist position merely because of the tone of the abolition / welfare debate is morally, politically, and intellectually frivolous. I, for one, have nothing but contempt for this kind for frivolity
But the most important point is that it is absurd to construe the abolitionist critique of welfarism as "accusation." It resists such construal by virtue of the fact that it focuses, not merely substantially but almost exclusively, on the property status of animals. Moreover, this critique is educational in the sense that it illuminates, among other things, why vegans should not support welfarist regulation. Indeed, this is of the utmost importance given that the dominant view is that welfarism is related to abolition, a view which has translated into a movement most of whose institutional resources are invested in welfarist initiates of one kind or another. It is also positive (for those who are concerned about "positivity"), for the following reason. New welfarism ("happy" animal products, etc.) is the negation of animal rights. Abolitionism is the negation of new welfarism. The negation of a negation is an affirmation. It is, in the present context, the affirmation of animal rights. It is the failure to understand this that leads people to claim that abolitionism is (too) negative.
Also, people accuse – without a hint of irony – abolitionists of being too negative while at the time same time levelling wholly negative accusations against abolitionists. Indeed, if these accusers seriously believed what they say then they would be holding an "olive branch" out to abolitionists. Moreover, there is a fundamental difference between these kinds of accusations and the abolitionist critique of welfarism. The former is ersatz critique because it focuses not an abolitionist theory but rather on (certain) people's unassimilated experience of the *way* abolitionists argue for abolitionism; and the latter is genuine critique because it rightly focuses not on welfarists but on their *ideology*.
Perhaps there are those of us who extended that olive branch out to abolitionists only to have that very branch snapped into two. Why? Because of the very things I spoke of… those of us that follow a path slightly different than the "grand wizard" and choose not to be followers our whole lives… were treated as "inferior" vegans. Not the super vegans I spoke of above. Yet I hold no grudge, or any ill will towards any. I live my own life the best I can based off of my own beliefs and values…not those that someone decides for me. I've always been more of one to either lead, or in the very least go my own way…and not just "blindly" accept the rules, values, and morals that someone else preaches… if I did, it would be just the same as believing in a god. I don't believe in any gods, worship none, nor do I think anyone should. There is nothing wrong with someone laying out the groundwork and the basic principles they themselves believe in. Yet is it not better for ALL voices to be heard? Can one and one alone have ALL the answers and ALL the solutions to the problem at hand? To believe so would be to fool ones own self. I may be many things…but "fool" is not one of them. Well at least that's my own theory on this claim I was trying to make. Perhaps I'll just continue along my own path..and when confronted with one who does not "know all"… If asked…I'll try to teach them and share any knowledge I myself may have gained along the way. Belittling them will accomplish nothing.
Again…I'm human enough to acknowledge my own limits and humble enough to admit that I found my own way like every single one of us…as one that many here call a: "welfarist"…Did we all become vegans overnight?Did we all understand and form our own beliefs about AR overnight? If I and almost all of you can change for the better…why do you believe that they can not find a better way as well? Casting blame is not working. You can "claim" all you want about they being the problem… yet still they do "something" while most do nothing…well except to continue to come up with more theories that is. I may not change the world…nor anyone else upon it. But I DID change myself. I can live with that. It was worth it, it feels good, it was the right thing to do, and I can rest peacefully at night knowing that every day I breath…I caused the least amount of harm possible to others… which to me..is what "I" myself am all about. I'm not part of any movement or bestow any title to my own name. I'm vegan in the way i live my day to day life. Not perfect, but just doing the best I can and leaving the smallest wake behind I possible can as I continue live my life. I'll always choose to use my own life as an example. I DO believe that my actions will always speak louder than my words.
In the following defense, I speak only for myself. I just want to clarify that.
James: "The counterargument is that (some) people find the tone of this debate to be uncongenial."
No, it is not about the tone being uncongenial. Take a peak at the video that I pasted a link to in my last post. "Uncongenial" does not even come close to being the word to describe that kind of hateful message. In terms of other less harsh forms of criticism, I want to make it clear that it's not about me wanting or encouraging the abolitionists to be nicey nice and make warm and fuzzy friends with the welfarists. I am specifically trying to communicate the failed intentions of abolitionism (overall) that occur by focusing mainly on the perpetual loop of disparagement, accusation, and ridicule of welfarism. I have seen abolitionists fail over and over and over again in an attempt to convert people to veganism–this failure being due to the disparagement thrown severely at welfarists. It's self-sabotage, and it's undermining the more honorable goal of abolition.
"But anyone who rejects the abolitionist position merely because of the tone of the abolition / welfare debate is morally, politically, and intellectually frivolous. I, for one, have nothing but contempt for this kind for frivolity."
Firstly, I agree with many of the ideas of abolition, so to say I reject it wholly based on one of its principles is inaccurate. Secondly, I have thought good and hard about the ills of welfarism and have read more about the positions and theories of abolition regarding welfarism than many of the followers of its own movement. To say that my thoughts and feelings regarding the abolitionist stance on welfarism have only skimmed the surface (i.e., are frivolous) indicates that you are attempting to simplify the matter out of sheer convenience, by summing up my conclusions as silly and lacking any serious concerns. I'm not required to write a blog entry once a month to prove that I have a serious, in depth, and mature opinion regarding the subject. I know the facts surrounding welfarism's crimes, and I also know the intricacies of the abolitionist stance. But that doesn't encompass the whole enchilada. One MUST take into consideration PROVEN outcomes. I can not emphasize this enough. Abolitionism has NOT proven that fixation on disparagement and criticism of welfarism is working. It is, IN FACT, working against its goals. (Same with animal liberation tactics, but that's another post…)
"I, for one, have nothing but contempt for this kind for frivolity."
Here you get the word right. Contempt. That is exactly what a number of abolitionists exude, dripping it liberally from their very pores.
Contempt: the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn.
I have never had contempt for abolitionists. I agree with the majority of their ideas. I merely reject the way in which most abolitionists make welfarism their focus, as well as many abolitionists' blind acceptance of Francione's word as gospel without any further thought processes. Meaning I find this *part* of the abolitionist approach lacking a balance of integrity or success.
"Perhaps the claim is not that it doesn't make sense to hold the new welfarist movement responsible for what it does, but that the effects of doing so are damaging."
I don't agree with this. The abolitionist movement as a whole has not even attempted to *try* an advocacy approach that does not include heavy criticism of welfarism. It started off with this negative approach from the get go, without giving the movement a chance to even prove that it can stand on its own two feet without its current crutch of welfarist accusations. (I realize that there are some individuals and organizations, as Dan pointed out, that do for the most part concentrate simply on the message of veganism, but those few examples do not constitute the abolitionist majority.)
"Also, people accuse – without a hint of irony – abolitionists of being too negative while at the time same time levelling wholly negative accusations against abolitionists. Indeed, if these accusers seriously believed what they say then they would be holding an "olive branch" out to abolitionists."
The olive branch comment was not my own, but I will address it. I don't believe in holding an olive branch out to welfarists (PeTA, etc.) – I see no meaningful outcome in that. I personally never said that welfarists and abolitionists should be chums.
However, on the other hand, the time that I spend educating anyone about veganism is not saturated with criticism of welfarism. And though I have written a few posts here pointing out the failure of abolitionism's approach toward advocacy in this one respect…this is NOT how I spend most of my time (I don't spend much time criticizing welfarism OR abolitionism). However, it is more than obvious, many abolitionists DO spend much of their time absolutely devoted to this subject and approach. There's a very clear difference. I have showered much praise on the abolitionist movement in the past. I have said more positive things about its ideas and theories than not. I simply disagree on this one point: the disadvantageous fixation on welfarism. I don't need any theories to know that it doesn't work. I've seen it with my own eyes over and over and over again, not just through introspection, but by watching abolitionists engage in conversations with non-vegans. We need to learn what works and what doesn't and sometimes that takes an honest admission and acknowledgment that perhaps an aspect of one's path is not the most successful (or as you might say, maximally conducive) approach.
Again, let me reiterate that I do find worth and value in the work of those individuals who spend time seriously and maturely delving deeply into theories and ideas surrounding abolition vs. welfarism (or claims-making and movements, in general). I believe there are a few individuals who have covered much enlightening ground regarding the subject. And their conclusions can be incorporated as *part* of the average activist's repertoire of tactics toward vegan education, to be disclosed candidly and maturely at the appropriate and most advantageous moment. I just don't believe abolitionist outreach needs to be permeated through and through with the message of these particular studies, and I have seen some folks most easily abuse these theories/ideas by twisting them into full-blown hateful campaigns (ala the Welfarist Nazi video). The insistence that certain generated theories regarding welfarism must be used as the main bulk of vegan outreach is somewhat misdirected (it is understandable that it is difficult not to see one's baby, a labor of love, as the top priority of the message). But the proof seems to be in the pudding when it comes to opening one's eyes to the real outcomes.
I'll back off from this topic now, as it seems to have headed in a tangential direction.
Wait, who gets to decide what is the heart of abolition and what's fringe to abolition? People who call us names, or the people actually trying to participate in and define abolition. I talk to so many people who feel they "lean toward" the abolition view or even call themselves abolitionists outright, who don't compare anyone to Nazis and are all about independent thinking. This kind of stuff gives me a headache and makes me despair of finding much common ground. I've been called so many horrible names, been accused of actually hating animals and wanting to hurt them, so I'm not sure how anyone can say the contempt is all on the abolition side.
Also I don't get the constant comments regarding "purity" which I've also seen at the ongoing conference this weekend. I never, ever said anything about purity, nor have most people (as far as I know) promoting abolition. I'll admit from the top that I'm deeply flawed. What I'm interested in, at this point, after nearly two decades of trying to change our treatment of animals, is finding tactics that work. Sure, I don't think approaching your average non-vegan person with a discussion of abolition vs. welfare will achieve much. But I also worry that approaching them with a discussion of minor reforms to the terrible treatment of animals and calling those small concessions major victories might also not be effective. This is why I choose vegan education with an abolitionist bent as my form of outreach. I also find this mode of discussion more honest–I'm vegan, I'm telling them about veganism, not minor legal reforms with strange wording that I'm not really for and don't entirely understand.
I honestly think my attitude represents a majority of "abolitionists." We don't hate anyone, we don't want to endlessly slam welfare, but we do critique welfare in "shop talk" with other activists when we discuss how to do effective, open, and honest outreach.
When it comes to accusations of once having been a welfarist myself, well of course. I came into this movement wanting to help animals without a single clue of how to do it. I've protested and collected signatures for fairly meaningless reforms. I've handed out leaflets on veganism, fur, vivisection, how eating meat ruins your sex life, factory farming, and so on. I've gone naked, worn silly costumes, been arrested (and in some cases beaten) about ten times. I've had my picture in magazines shut in a tiny cage to illustrate cage size. I've written letters, letters to the editor, you name it, on so many possible topics. At this point I want to look back over my experience, and your experience, and my buddies' experience and try to determine out of all of those things I've done, which ones were effective, which wasted my time and resources, and which might actually have been detrimental to the cause. And I honestly think that everyone has a right to debate issues and tactics, whine or complain if they need to, and think critically about the value of certain actions.
Oh well, I probably sound like an angry person and in real life I'm really not. The internet tends to make so many statements sound harsh and accusatory and mean. I really do think it's wonderful that anyone is out there trying to help animals in whatever capacity they feel they can or feel moved to do… But that won't stop me from wrestling with questions of effectiveness and consistent messaging.
"super vegans"
"follow the leader"
"grand wizard"
Come on people, we can do better than this. Let's not reduce a conversation to juvenile name calling.
RY
I am not interested in addressing claims about how abolitionists "blindly accept Francione's word as gospel", but I will say this: it is worrying that people are prepared to apply, with no conceptual unease, the concept of "a lack of independent thinking" to abolitionists' principled agreement with Francione's theoretical frame (thereby hoping to transmogrify it into slavish devotion).
Nor am I interested in addressing claims about the supposed inefficacy of abolitionist outreach which are based either on the continuous and systematic confusion of abolitionist outreach with non-abolitionist outreach, or on wild and – more importantly – unprovable generalizations based on this or that person's supposed experience of this or that supposed abolitionist who may or may not be engaging in abolitionist outreach.
So I will just address the claim that the critique of welfarism reduces to "disparagement and accusation", which abolitionists use as a "crutch".
A theory on the animal rights movement that did not incorporate a critique of welfarism would be uselessly idle; for it would not be responsive to the actual conditions of the animal rights struggle. Inherent to the dominant (welfarist) paradigm is the idea that animal use is okay as long as long as it is done "humanely", an effect which is supposedly achieved through welfarist regulation. Now the justification for the need of a paradigm shift comes from the fact that the dominant paradigm is morally and practically problematic: as a moral matter animal use is wrong irrespective of how "humane" it is; and as a practical matter the mechanism used to regulate animal use (i.e. welfarist reform) does not make animal use "humane". But if we do not show people why the dominant welfarist paradigm is problematic, then we will not provide them with any reason why they should reject it. This implies that we have to critique "happy" animal products and welfarist regulation in particular, and the welfarist movement in general. And Gary Francione has produced, among other things, a theoretically powerful and empirically extremely well-founded critique of these things, which forms a constitutive part of abolitionist theory.
Accordingly, abolitionists do not use the critique of welfarism as a "crutch". On the contrary, they critique welfarism because welfarism is a constitutive part of a competing and incommensurable paradigm.
Roger…as you quote from me:
"super vegans"
"follow the leader"
"grand wizard"
Come on people, we can do better than this. Let's not reduce a conversation to juvenile name calling.
RY
************************************************
You can call me juvenile..yet I KNOW you know the very posts on ARCO that GF posted…where it was "he himself" doing the name calling…lots and lots of it. He sat there for days "belittling" others… those words of his are probably still there.
Yet those things and words you fail to bring up. You too saw his words… I know you did.
I won't argue. I'll stand by my own beliefs and my own words.
Again… I might not be one that agrees with all that one writes…as I stated..I have my own. Why do I have to blindly just "accept" the beliefs of another without forming my own opinions?
I write only from my heart and from what I saw and read with my own eyes. There is still much more that can be done. Is saying: "following the leader" something that is "juvenile name calling"??? Why can one not have their own independent beliefs and core values?
If anything…I spoke from my own heart…as I always do. I still believe there's a better way. I will always believe that all should add to a cause and not follow blindly…to always question things. How does one learn if they do not question? i know there are those out there that DO have questions…that DO want to learn more…that are not stuck on the "wrong" path…only because they have yet to find the right one…
Think what you may of me, or how I look at the world. Yet every single day of my life… I am surrounded by those I saved. The good I did, and continue to try and do.
Why are so many "put down" when they first approach the abolitionists? Maybe (just maybe) you don't see it. It's there. See… I myself agree…on many many levels with the abolitionist wants and needs for the world we "all" want to see happen one day. I just still think…there is a better way…not to reach out to those that think that "cruelty free" is the answer…but for those that were once like we (or at least many of us)… just learning… taking steps to learn. There are so many out there sending in money, doing things they need not do (as Neva said she did…and learned from)… THOSE are the people that need to be reached. They can get there. They are on the right path. Why not just embrace them? Why not reach out and teach them?
Do you have the answer?
DD: You can call me juvenile..yet I KNOW you know the very posts on ARCO that GF posted…where it was "he himself" doing the name calling…lots and lots of it. He sat there for days "belittling" others… those words of his are probably still there. Yet those things and words you fail to bring up. You too saw his words… I know you did.
~~First, I tried not to personalise things – my plea was to all of us and I did not deliberately pick you out. I really cannot see why we should return to ARCO debates of months ago. Since I do not regard GF as my ‘leader’ I share no responsibility for what he did or did not say anywhere. It should be said that Francione has rejected a ‘leadership’ role several times and I think we should take him on his word on that.
DD: I won't argue. I'll stand by my own beliefs and my own words. Again… I might not be one that agrees with all that one writes…as I stated..I have my own. Why do I have to blindly just "accept" the beliefs of another without forming my own opinions? I write only from my heart and from what I saw and read with my own eyes. There is still much more that can be done. Is saying: "following the leader" something that is "juvenile name calling"??? Why can one not have their own independent beliefs and core values?
~~I am not sure who is saying you must blindly accept the beliefs of another. Not me certainly. You may have missed my comment made earlier in this discussion that I do not slavishly follow GF on everything and I am not sure he would expect or want that. I am not sure who these ‘follow my leader’ people are. I have read enough of Mary’s posts, and James’, and Dan’s to know they have independent ideas. What I have said is that I believe GF is the most important animal ethicist writing at the moment and I hope that his efforts will lead to some much-needed clarity in the ‘animal rights movement’.
DD: If anything…I spoke from my own heart…as I always do. I still believe there's a better way. I will always believe that all should add to a cause and not follow blindly…to always question things. How does one learn if they do not question? i know there are those out there that DO have questions…that DO want to learn more…that are not stuck on the "wrong" path…only because they have yet to find the right one… Think what you may of me, or how I look at the world. Yet every single day of my life… I am surrounded by those I saved. The good I did, and continue to try and do.
~~I will never criticise someone from speaking from the heart – who would? Both Francione and Regan have argued that animal rights advocacy is based on a mix of emotions and rational thinking. I am all for critical thinking too.
DD: Why are so many "put down" when they first approach the abolitionists? Maybe (just maybe) you don't see it. It's there. See… I myself agree…on many many levels with the abolitionist wants and needs for the world we "all" want to see happen one day. I just still think…there is a better way…not to reach out to those that think that "cruelty free" is the answer…but for those that were once like we (or at least many of us)… just learning… taking steps to learn. There are so many out there sending in money, doing things they need not do (as Neva said she did…and learned from)… THOSE are the people that need to be reached. They can get there. They are on the right path. Why not just embrace them? Why not reach out and teach them?
Do you have the answer?
~~I will attempt to answer this through a sociological lens. Animal welfarism, in its traditional sense, is the dominant paradigm when it comes to how people look at human-nonhuman relations. New welfarism is the dominant paradigm within the animal movement. The basic ideas of animal welfarism are institutionalised, socialised and internalised in an animal-using society. These social norms and values may seem hard to challenge – even for many people in the animal protection movement. My own feeling is that some people – who may well see themselves as cutting-edge radicals – are rather unprepared to take on the logic of animal rights thought (what we seem to have had to call abolitionism in this conversation). Many animal advocates do not see the need for veganism. Some see no need to ‘give up’ their pets. Many that do see these things are nevertheless wary of making them their main claims. Many prefer to focus on vivisection, or factory farming, or dog eating that goes on in China and the whale killing Japanese. Therefore, I known some people argue that being honest is being tactically naive, that we should go for the 'soft targets' like bloodsports and deny that meat eating is the same thing.
I think one of the hardest things about the abolitionist message is the very fact that it inevitably criticises animal welfarism (and in all its forms) because many people may read that to mean that what they are doing and what they have done for many years is not the best thing they could have been doing. That really is a hard sell but if Francione’s Rain Without Thunder thesis is sound, then that just happens to be the truth of the matter.
I personally expect many animal advocates to reject Francione’s ideas and be upset by them. They may take his opinion of their campaigning as a personal insult. I expect most animal advocates to remain committed to welfarism. It is what they know. It is what they can talk about with ease – many people appear not to like to make rights-based claims for a number of reasons. They feel they are speaking the same language as the general public when they frame their claims in terms of welfarist tenets. My only wish of the animal welfarists and others who oppose rights-based claims is that they would kindly allow those who actually believe in animal rights be the ones to use that name.
After that (!), perhaps then we'll get to test out this wacky idea called animal rights.
As a little support for the last part of my last comment, may I add: http://roger.rbgi.net/strength%20resilience%20orthodox.html
Snip – [Mary, please feel free to delete if you feel this is not relevant]…
Apart from the philosophers and other academics who take an interest in the subject on some level or other, it is remarkably common to find that journalistic treatment of ‘the animal issue’ display a strong orientation to non-radical welfarist norms. As suggested above, there appears to be a further acceptance – indeed, sometimes an open ideological advocacy – of the assumed correctness of animal welfare’s central location between extreme and groundless positions. For example, when in 1998 the British rights campaigner Barry Horne went on hunger strike in protest at the government refusal to establish a Royal Commission on animal experimentation, the Independent newspaper ran an editorial (14/12/98) entitled ‘Remember the Real Animal Welfare Issues’. To some extent this piece appears to be a genuine attempt to give serious attention to the issues raised by the fact that someone was willing to risk their life for ‘animal causes’. However, the title itself is obviously firmly located within the purview of the moral orthodoxy, and its censorious note is common of such articles, many of which tend to at least imply that some ‘bigger picture’ has been overlooked. Although it may be suggested that the headline merely reflects the hyperbole of subeditorship, it is also fairly clear from the substantive text that the writer was either unable or unwilling (or both) to assess the situation from the type of animal rights approach often adopted and expressed by Barry Horne himself.
Not only is the lens through which the writer sees issues raised by Horne’s actions clearly welfarist in the main, she also descends (if the point may be put this way) into animal conservationist themes at times, for example, in the claim that perhaps the activist was correct to draw attention to the ‘unnecessary suffering’ (the central welfarist tenet) in ‘some animal testing’, but that other animal issues are as, or are more, worthy of consideration. Raising a conservation theme, the author notes that the short-haired bumblebee is reportedly recently extinct in Britain, and implies that Barry Horne should give cognisance to this – and to the plight of other threatened species such as the skylark and the water vole. Arguing that the size of the human population represents a threat to animals in general, the author also complains that humans have over-fished the waters around Britain. She again implies – as with the issue of the skylark – that this is the ‘the important animal issue’ that should perhaps be a more proper and worthy concern to the hunger striker. Such points, of course, are framed within welfarist/conservationist understandings of human-nonhuman relations. For example, the author declares that the fishing issue is not really an ‘anti-European issue’, as some may suspect or claim, rather, ‘we have over-fished our own fish’ (my emphasis), a factor that requires a degree of political intervention.
While a commitment to a genuine animal rights position obviously does not preclude an active interest in the plight of animal ‘species’ taken as a whole group or as a population, it is true to say that the essential focus of rights thought is based on the individual and his or her protection: even against group welfare (see Regan 2001; Francione 1996a; 1996b). Therefore, given his animal rights declarations, it is extremely unlikely that Barry Horne would approach the issue of humans eating fishes in terms of assessing – let alone ‘managing’ – ‘fish stocks’. Neither would he likely accept that, somehow, fishes belong to human beings simply because they are found in ‘their’ waters. A rightist’s response may be to wonder whether it might be more correct to claim the marine environment for the fishes rather than for humans.
Despite the fact that the Independent newspaper had followed the ‘progress’ of the hunger strikes over many weeks, had reported on the basic reasons for the action, and had often spoken to Horne’s representatives outside prison or hospital, this piece is a representative example of a writer ultimately finding it very difficult to assess an issue about the treatment of nonhumans as animal rightists would be inclined to. Such an inclination would, for example, challenge outright the human exploitation of other animals as resources and object to the property status of animals; but not on the basis of the rarity of any particular ‘species’.
On a more subtle level, allowing for the fact that the Independent had regularly covered the hunger strike stories, the writer of this piece failed to recognise that, effectively, Barry Horne had been ‘reduced’ to essentially making animal welfare demands of the ‘New’ Labour government. While he began by demanding the complete and immediate abolition of animal experimentation; campaigning for the ‘total end of vivisection’, a rightist’s aspiration outlined by Regan (1985), Horne eventually ended up advocating that the government merely set up a formal inquiry into the subject of animal experiments that would test vivisection as a valid scientific methodology. Had such an inquiry been established, a Royal Commission on animal experimentation would have undoubtedly rejected any tabled option of total abolition as unrealistic and uneconomic, as well as extremely difficult to do unilaterally. Therefore, any movement at all toward Barry Horne’s demands would have been in the nature of traditional welfarist measures: proposals such as ‘tightening’ existing regulations and legislation. If anything, the Independent’s story of the ‘animal rights hunger striker’ is a dazzling reaffirmation of the centrality of orthodox animal welfarist ideology when it comes to discourse about, and responses to, animal rights claims. Even when a rights advocate shifted from a strictly rights position the journalist apparently had little hope to be aware of it. Had she ever examined the issue of human-nonhuman relations from any position other than that of the moral orthodoxy?
The Guardian journalist Polly Toynbee considered the hunger strike when Horne had refused food for sixty-two consecutive days. In an article entitled, ‘Sorry, But I Think Dying People are More Important than Dumb Animals’, Toynbee says she finds it ‘perverse’ that animal rights activists should ‘pick first on science’, since she believes animal experimentation amounts to the ‘most morally justifiable reason for the destruction of animals’. However, she goes on, these ‘barmy’ and ‘dotty’ animal rights extremists, with their ‘selective cause’, may be contrasted with other ‘sensible animal campaigners’ who do not take the ‘nutty’ rights view. ‘Sensible’ campaigners ‘simply want animals to be treated more kindly, farmed less cruelly’ and, where used in experiments, ‘scrupulously cared for’. Of course, these ‘sensible’ advocates are not ‘dotty’ animal rightists but, yes, ‘realistic’ and ‘reasonable’ animal welfarists who – with another enunciation of the kindly stewardship model – apparently appreciate, in Toynbee’s own words, that ‘humans do have dominion over the birds and the beasts, but that with dominion comes responsibility to treat them well’.
Toynbee’s strident pronouncement of the putative correctness of animal welfarism and her theological justification of the human domination of other animals is immediately followed by a declaration straight from the mouths of some of those who believe that the so-called ‘postmodern condition’ is a reality (see Best and Kellner 1991 for the debate between critical and postmodern theorists about the ‘break’ from modernism to ‘postmodernism’). ‘We’ humans, Toynbee confidently claims, currently live in a ‘causeless era’. In this condition, she continues, many might perhaps look longingly on someone who appears to have found something to passionately believe in, even something as barmy as animal rights. Few people now have a belief in religion, or in socialism, or have numerous ‘ologies’ and ‘isms’ to inform them, she goes on, so perhaps the absurdity of animal rights can fill the void for some. For her, however, ‘animal rights’ is evidently a decadent and a ‘murderous cause’ of ‘crazy’, ‘dangerous’ and above all ‘unreasonable’ passions; unlike the sensible, judicious, commonplace and non-dotty cause of animal welfarism.
"Nor am I interested in addressing claims about the supposed inefficacy of abolitionist outreach which are based either on the continuous and systematic confusion of abolitionist outreach with non-abolitionist outreach, or on wild and – more importantly – unprovable generalizations based on this or that person's supposed experience of this or that supposed abolitionist who may or may not be engaging in abolitionist outreach."
1. If I were to put it in a nutshell, the point of abolitionism is to hopefully abolish the use of all animals by humans.
2. The current predominant approach (used to achieve this goal) chosen by abolitionists is to disparage and criticize welfarism.
3. This approach is based on theory, not proven outcomes.
4. There are no statistics that abolitionists possess to prove that the outcome of this approach has been successful. If there are, I have not been privy to them. I once asked the abolitionists on ARCO how many abolitionists they think exist. They replied, "Uh…I don't know…we don't have those figures." I asked, "Well, can you give me just a ballpark figure…you know…like dozens or hundreds or thousands?" They said, "Uh, we are growing in our numbers." So there is no proof or statistics (not even guesstimates) as to how many people have become vegan due to abolition (much less through which approach), or how many vegans have become abolitionists.
5. Without those figures, what am I to base my conclusions on? Except the outcomes that I experience? ! Yes. My experience.
6. In my overall experience, many abolitionists drive away people who might otherwise be vegan (and abolitionist) because of the welfare fixation. If I thought this approach worked, I would still be blasting welfarism to friends, family, and members on forums/blogs, because God knows, I was good at it. But the outcome of that approach was exactly the same as the outcome I see for other abolitionists who do the same…failure.
7. If one does not possess the humility and good sense to assess and reassess their failures, they are doomed to continually fail. A well-thought out idea about how something OUGHT to work, does not necessarily automatically mean that it will work in the real world. Real world societal dynamics can't always be summed up simply in mathematical terms, 1+1 doesn't always equal 2 in this case. There are complicated things that get in the way, for example the average person's internal defense mechanisms that naturally act up when fingers are pointed harshly at them (have you factored that into your theoretical equation?). I.e., human nature.
"…empirically extremely well-founded critique…"
Empirical evidence is based specifically on observation and experience (essentially real world outcomes), which is exactly what my conclusions are based on (since I have nothing else to go on). Empirical evidence is specifically NOT based on theory. An empirical theory/critique is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron if you will.
The charge of asceticism, understood as extreme self-denial, stems directly from misunderstanding veganism… or at least understanding it completely differently than I do.
Misunderstanding One: Dividing Action from Ethics
Veganism is not practice that can be separated from morality. Veganism is both ethics and actions all at once. Our behaviors as vegans are crafted by our consciences, our moral commitment to nonhumans.
But many separate veganism from morality, and cast it merely as practice that can be conditioned by any number of concerns. Usually, the practice is reduced to diet, while the concerns can include any of the following: health, rebellion, ethics, impressing others, and the environment.
This divide is required for veganism to coherently be called a diet. If veganism is fundamentally moral, limiting the practice to diet makes no sense. All forms and products of exploitation share the same roots. Cow milk, "wool", and rodeos are all morally problematic, but they are not necessarily bad for the environment or human health. Clearly, the more exclusively that veganism is concerned with food, the more that shunning non-food transgressions (like "wool" and rodeos) will seem superfluous and extreme.
Furthermore, this divide diminishes the role of morality to optional or possible, allowing veganism to take an inward focus. When veganism becomes human-centered rather than externally focused on nonhumans, the moral imperative is lost. When doing everything reasonably possible not to participate with exploitation is *not* imperative, then anything that might require more than nominal effort or discomfort — reading ingredient lists, looking for hygiene products not tested on nonhumans, not checking out the new aquarium, not eating cookies or pancakes made with butter or bird eggs — probably will seem onerous and extreme.
Misunderstanding Two: Spectrum View
Veganism, as shown above, cannot be placed on a spectrum with any diet. Yet many are proponents of the spectrum view, generally known as "omnivore->vegetarian->vegan". This perspective reinforces the actions/ethics divide of misunderstanding one (by equating veganism with diets), and immediately construes veganism as being at the far end (thus extreme).
When steps along the spectrum are encouraged and lauded, particularly as acceptable stopping points, this focuses advocates upon the wrongness of specific practices ("meat" et cetera), not the importance of holistic ethics. Thus advocates informed by the spectrum are further reinforcing misunderstanding one by allowing morally negative actions to stand on their own — independent of a coherent underlying ethic.
The spectrum view is deeply intertwined with utilitarian logic. Utilitarianism declares that something is intrinsically valuable, and that our actions must somehow maximize this goal. Among welfarists the goal is reduced suffering, which fits within the spectrum approach because welfarists see veganism as a tool to reduce suffering. Welfarists are lead to the notion of "diminishing returns" — that individuals need not stress the details of their participation with exploitation, being "pure", because eliminating the bulk of their participation suffices to reduce suffering. For some others, non-welfarists, the goal is veganism directly. Both cases offer similarly problematic guidance.
Crux of the spectrum view: validation for those who make any move along the spectrum. For onlookers and recipients of advocacy, the message reads as: they don't really have to be vegan, as long as they do slightly better than now; veganism is ideal, but not imperative, so just a shift in that direction is enough. Their focus is drawn toward particular behaviors they might adjust, not broader thoughts about the human-nonhuman relationship. Faced with challenges to the entirety of their exploitive behaviors, which are often convenient, pleasurable, and/or traditional, the spectrum grants an easy out.
General Thoughts on Veganism
Principle is paramount. Exploitation permeates society to such a degree that attempting to delineate vegan practice is very difficult. Every context and potential situation can never be accounted for nor predicted. But when internally guided by the perspective that nonhumans should not be exploited because they are morally significant individuals with an interest in their own lives, the practice usually takes care of itself.
Veganism is within our conscience, or nowhere. Those who are permanently vegan, who have deeply integrated the inherent worth of nonhumans within their psyche, are no more denying themselves than the observers of other moral positions. At this moment in history, actual vegans are probably denying themselves far *less* than many who, for example, don't rape, molest, harass, murder, or child abuse. At some post abolition future, some humans who don't exploit nonhumans might feel they are denying themselves, just as most current non-vegans believe they would be as vegans.
Consider Dan's comment outlining why Arthur Schopenhauer believed humans act morally [1]. Unlike societal stances against harassment and child abuse, veganism is not mandated legally, socially, or by any major religion. This dearth of external pressure means that veganism must come from within. This is partly why there are so many former "vegans". Such individuals focused on the *what* without properly accounting for the *why*. From my perspective, including the actions/ethics relationship and role of nonhumans' worth being embedded within our psyche, turncoats never really were vegan. If you are not vegan now, you never were.
You cannot "try" veganism without it first having been reduced to practice. Moral commitments are not something you give a trial run, diets are.
My summary of our advocacy challenge is derived from one of Dan's blog entries: we must learn to impose upon the consciences of our audience [2]. This wont happen one way, there is no blueprint for maximally effective vegan education, thus Francione's emphasis on creativity.
[1] http://www.animalperson.net/animal_person/2008/08/on-whole-foods.html#comment-126332596
[2] http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2007/09/on-imposing-beliefs-on-others.html
"The current predominant approach (used to achieve this goal) chosen by abolitionists is to disparage and criticize welfarism."
This is based on a misunderstanding of the fact that animal welfare is the default position which everyone accepts – and which therefore must be addressed by any movement (such as the abolitionist movement) promoting a competing and incommensurable paradigm.
Moreover, the abolitionist approach resists reduction to the critique of welfarism as it stresses the importance of educating the public about *all* aspects of veganism – moral, political, health, and environmental.
"There are no statistics that abolitionists possess to prove that the outcome of this approach has been successful. If there are, I have not been privy to them."
Abolitionists are trying to a paradigm shift in *thinking*. Not just any means are adequate to task of changing the way people think. The only plausibly adequate way of achieving a paradigm shift in thinking is *education*. That is why, among other things, the abolitionist approach stresses the primacy of vegan education.
"If I thought this approach worked, I would still be blasting welfarism to friends, family, and members on forums/blogs, because God knows, I was good at it."
An approach that stresses the importance of education can hardly be blamed for the lack of success of people who “blast” their friends and family with criticism.
"But the outcome of that approach was exactly the same as the outcome I see for other abolitionists who do the same…failure."
The sociologist Roger Yates has claimed that the launch of Gary Francione's website in late 2006 marked the beginning of the abolitionist movement. As such it is absurdly premature to judge that abolitionism has failed.
In reality, however, the claim by welfarists that the emerging abolitionist movement has failed is merely attempt to strangle it at birth.
"If one does not possess the humility and good sense to assess and reassess their failures, they are doomed to continually fail. A well-thought out idea about how something OUGHT to work, does not necessarily automatically mean that it will work in the real world. Real world societal dynamics can't always be summed up simply in mathematical terms, 1+1 doesn't always equal 2 in this case."
There is no conflict between theory and practice; on the contrary, there is a correlation, since an under-theorized understanding of the actual conditions of the struggle will translate into ineffective and even counterproductive activism.
“There are complicated things that get in the way, for example the average person's internal defense mechanisms that naturally act up when fingers are pointed harshly at them (have you factored that into your theoretical equation?) I.e. human nature”
First: the internalization of welfarist ideology – of the idea that animal use is acceptable as long as it is regulated to make it “humane” – is one of the greatest obstacles to the adoption of veganism. Yet many people claim that we should *not* critique welfarism. That is, in my opinion, radically misguided.
Second: the above passage conflates the way we advocate veganism to the public and the way we critique a false liberatory ideology (i.e. new welfarism). When I advocate veganism to people I do not "blast" them with criticism. On the contrary, I always try to treat them respectfully, not merely so that I am likely to achieve a favorable "outcome", but also because it is necessary in itself in order to treat them justly. This means that I have to take seriously their conception of themselves and their understanding of their situation (of what they think it demands of them, etc.). I do not pretend to virtues I do not possess, and I always convey clearly and unequivocally, but not thereby aggressively, why I am vegan and why I believe that others should be vegan too. Only under these conditions, I think, can conversation be true to its deeper potentialities and do its humanizing work of opening up the possibilities of authentic human disclosure.
When I criticize new welfarism, however, I always keep in mind that it is *a false liberatory ideology*. Imagine the following scenario: a group of humans is being institutionally exploited. A second group of humans who claim to be their “liberators” promote an ideology according to which the path to liberation is to promote “humane” institutionalized exploitation and regulatory measures which (whether they realize it or not) have the effect of increasing the efficiency and profitability of the methods of exploitation. Furthermore, the “liberators”, in an attempt to maintain dominance, characterize debate of their policies as “divisive” and any attempt to break away from their “movement” as “infighting”.
Now it is clear that this ideology should be criticized mercilessly. It should also be clear that anyone who claimed that it was wrong to do this would be utterly misguided. Indeed, anyone who claimed this would be in the grip of the “liberators’” ideology *themselves*.
Furthermore, it would, in my opinion, be wrong to claim that the “liberators” themselves are well-intentioned but utterly misguided. We only call “good” intentions that express values which we can take seriously. I, for one, cannot take seriously intentions which express the idea that “humane” institutionalized exploitation can be acceptable under *any* circumstances, even if it is supposedly as a means to the “best outcome”. For the idea of acting decently, that is, in accordance with animal rights, is inseparable from anything that could be a serious candidate for the “best outcome” or the “common good.”
Actually, I have seen certain abolitionists blast welfarism to people on ARCO (and on other forums/blogs) many a time, with words that were extremely harsh and accusatory.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.