Guest guest Posted October 2, 2000 Report Share Posted October 2, 2000 Veganism: The Path To Animal Liberation by Matt Ball, Jack Norris & Anne Green Preface In the past twenty years, the animals rights movement has made the public aware of many issues concerning animals. But unfortunately, in the decade we have been active, per-capita meat consumption has risen, and the number of animals killed in the U.S. has increased by hundreds of millions each year. Bringing about animal liberation – the day when our society no longer exploits animals – has always been the motivation behind Vegan Outreach, and we believe it is possible to achieve this in the United States. But first, we must change deeply ingrained patterns of behavior. Given the increasing animal exploitation in our country, we have tried to step back and question the general assumptions about animal activism. In this article, we try to share with other activists what we feel are the main stumbling blocks to achieving animal liberation. Like many new activists, we first believed that the world would change through protests. At that time in Cincinnati, about 30 people turned out for protests such as Fur Free Friday. We were sure that others, when shown what we had seen, would get involved. By phoning over 200 people and advertising in other ways for each of our protests, we were able to increase the number of protesters to 70 for one event. But despite our continued efforts, the numbers quickly fell below their original level. This mirrors the experience of activists in other cities: most protesters are involved only a short time. Their protesting might have filled a temporary need to make a public statement against cruelty; or perhaps, when nothing changed after a few protests, they became disenchanted. The rest are veteran activists – extremely dedicated, but few in number. We finally accepted that our protests were not going to be like the civil rights marches, with thousands of people in the streets. After four years of protests, an extensive anti-fur campaign, being arrested at Procter & Gamble, public fasting, numerous talks at schools, etc., we came to realize that the non-confrontational spreading of veganism is the key to animal liberation, since veganism is the individual enactment of animal liberation, whereby animals are neither viewed nor treated as objects or tools. If You Aren't Outraged… You Aren't Paying Attention When we consider the nearly unfathomable atrocities committed against non-human animals, and at the same time are surrounded by people unable or unwilling to see what is so obvious to us, our outrage and isolation can be intense. We are understandably – and appropriately – angered. Our emotions are intensified when we see public representations of animal abuse – the rich woman in fur, animal humiliation in circuses, drunks blasting caged pigeons. We are compelled to do something – arguing, protesting, civil disobedience, smashing windows, etc. We feel that if we don't take action, we are abandoning the animals we see suffering. Those Who Refuse To Learn From History… Are Condemned To Repeat It Unable to turn our backs on visible atrocities, our movement focuses the majority of its resources on small-scale and short-term issues: trying to save high-profile animals, change business practices of large corporations, and shame women wearing fur. Some believe these sorts of campaigns will be the foundation for widespread change. Many activists believe in the trickle-up theory of activism (i.e., get someone involved by questioning the rodeo and personal veganism will eventually follow). This may have worked for them and a number of other activists they know, but activists are unusual people. Results to date have shown that most people are not going to see a news report of a protest and then get involved in activism leading to personal veganism and cascading, widespread change. What has been gained for all the battles fought – for the thousands of bills and petitions, the millions of hours worked, the hundreds of millions of dollars spent? Some furriers have closed their doors, a handful of companies have stopped testing cosmetics on animals, and a small percentage of animal experiments have been halted. How many animals have we saved through these campaigns? A few million, perhaps? But while we point to these occasional victories, the number of animals exploited in the U.S. increases by hundreds of millions each year. Our movement has become an endless, self-perpetuating cycle of small battles where most activists join, become frustrated, quit, and then do nothing. If we were the animal exploiters, our plan would be to keep caring, compassionate people focused on the immediate and short term: rescuing individual animals and protesting isolated cases of abuse. Since animal advocates have minuscule resources compared to the industries which use animals, compassionate people will never be a threat to the status quo as long as they fail to address society's fundamental attitude toward animals, namely that animals exist for humans to use. The Current Approach The Media Circus Numerous animal rights issues have gained extensive media coverage and have been seen by many millions of people. Yet for all the catchy slogans and hard-won sound bites, few viewers or listeners have considered, let alone adopted, a philosophy of non-exploitation. Reaching millions of people through sound bites does not allow for such a change in philosophy. In fact, it often does more harm than good. Though there may be exceptional reporters, we should recognize the fact that the media is not a friend of the animals. Some activists say that " all media is good media, " because getting any attention is better than none. But in the 1990s, the media has seldom been anything but bad. The mainstream media is rarely interested in presenting the real issues. We don't recall ever seeing the philosophy of animal liberation fairly explained in a mainstream media report. Most reports are at least semi-successful attempts to make us look like extremists and fools. Reporters who act like they are on our side often twist our words to hurt our image. Even when the news does not blatantly try to make us look bad, the report will normally add a disclaimer. For example, if they are doing a story on the cruelty of the meat industry (such as downers), they will state that this sort of abuse is isolated. Thus, the reporter and the viewing public can rest easy, knowing the cruelty isn't institutionalized and that it's not their fault or concern. The bad media has taken its toll on activists who believe the media is their only option. More importantly, most reporting helps the public ignore our message by allowing them to view us as misguided and silly. We need to stop counting on the media to be the go-between for ourselves and the public. In almost all cases, they are poor ambassadors (at best) for our message. The media appears to be a cheap form of advertising, but when the total effects are added up, the media is actually quite costly. Protesting From being a part of over 400 protests, we've seen that demonstrations (like the media) can be effective in a few unique circumstances. Most demos, however, are an avenue for activists to vent their anger, and can often take the place of constructive, progressive action. Like media-antics, protesting with an angry air has mainly served to make a statement about us (the activists) rather than the issues. Screaming slogans makes us seem cultish, indoctrinated, and disconnected from the rest of society. We will not be able to protest society into becoming vegan. We need to gain people's interest in other ways. Civil Disobedience Theoretically, civil disobedience (CD) can play a useful role in achieving our goal of animal liberation, because it is possible to receive attention without performing ridiculous or violent acts. This is definitely not fail-safe, and for the reasons mentioned previously, we should expect that the media will try to make us look bad. In addition, when we do CD on behalf of unseen animals, it is less effective than CD done by persecuted humans. The people performing the CD become the issue (even in our own circles: " Kevin needs our help! " , " Free the Tennessee Two! " ). CD consumes an enormous amount of the most committed activists' time and resources. In return, CD is a small thorn in the side of the police and those in the criminal justice system. But the criminal justice system has little, if anything, to do with the targeted animal exploitation. It is not The System that brings about animal exploitation – it is the people who buy the products. Showing The System that you are angry makes no difference to the consuming public, and costs them an irrelevant amount of money. It also promotes the view that The System is responsible for animal cruelty, removing responsibility from individuals. Animal Liberation Front Although the number of animals and activists involved are a tiny fraction of the whole, the actions of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) define our movement to many people. Activists judge one another based on their level of ALF support, and the public often judges all activists based on ALF activities, dismissing us as " terrorists. " There are two aspects of ALF activity that are important to distinguish: freeing animals and sabotage. Stealing animals from cruel situations and providing them homes is an illegal activity that does not, in and of itself, significantly damage our message. In fact, much of the public (and nearly all activists) can sympathize with the individual animals taken from terrible situations. These actions do little to reduce the number of animals who suffer (as those taken are simply replaced in most cases), but the actions can be educational. Other activities, such as releasing animals to the wild or vandalizing property, serve to harm our progress. Letting captive animals out to die of starvation (which is how it is always reported, regardless of the truth) makes us look naive about animals. Vandalism allows the public to dismiss the message as the rantings of extremists and terrorists. We like to say that we are a non-violent movement (for good reason), and despite our protestations, the public views vandalism as violence. We do not condemn the motivations of the ALF. We have great sympathy for those who feel compelled to break the law to try to save animals. However, simply because something is done with the most noble of motivation or the best of intentions doesn't make those actions effective or appropriate tactics. Hostility In his essay, Strategic Nonviolence for Animal Liberation, Freeman Wicklund writes: " Hostility and acts of economic sabotage – another form of hostility – do not act in a void. They produce many negative consequences which supersede their perceived benefits. Hostility hinders the conversion process in both the undecided public and the opposition, it decreases support for our cause, it can alienate our troops and supporters, it encourages loyalty within the opposition camp to their superiors, [and] it strengthens the opposition's determination to fight us. " In addition to polarizing the issue and alienating potential allies, our confrontational language detracts from, and even undermines, the message of animal liberation. In her essay, Ending the `Fight' for Animal Rights, Rosemary Anne Amey (Waigh) writes: " `The compassionate battle for animal rights.' `Tackling vivisection.' `Bringing the fur industry to its knees.' From grassroots pamphlets to scholarly monographs, we often use metaphors of violence when we talk about helping animals. This language reflects our despair, frustration, and rage when confronted by the enormous injustice that animals suffer every day. At the same time, most animal activists believe the use of actual violence to advance animal rights (or for any other reason!) is immoral. To argue that our noble ends justify nefarious means would be using the same bad reasoning that is used to justify vivisection. " I am not suggesting that we compromise our goal – the protection of the rights of all animals – in order to make our movement more `palatable.' I say let's use violent words only when they are truly appropriate – describing the violence of the slaughterhouse, the laboratory and the fur ranch. Let there be no more confusion in the public mind. Animal rights activists do not support violence. Our opponents do. " Why Veganism Animal liberation is possible only if there is a fundamental change in the way animals are viewed and treated by our society. The key to this is the basic issue that connects the majority of people to the vast majority of animals exploited (over 95%) – the use of animals for food. If 5–10% of Americans were to stop eating animals, far more suffering would be prevented than if we completely abolished every other form of animal exploitation in the U.S. As Gary Francione of the Rutgers Animal Law Clinic has said, " If you can help ten people to go vegetarian in a year, you have done more good than most animal rights organizations. " As more people understand and act by the tenets of animal liberation, it will be far easier for others to join them. This will bring pressure to bear on other animal issues, and achievement of our goals will be accelerated. Some activists, feeling there is no way society could become vegan, put their time into reform. Although it may be possible to outlaw a specific version of a battery cage or veal crate, as long as animals are viewed as objects for producing cheap meat for hundreds of millions of humans, there will be no economical means of humanely raising the required billions of animals (witness the absurdity of most " free-range " animals, whose living conditions are hardly different from those animals factory farmed). Furthermore, we will never be able to assure the humane transport and slaughter of animals. When one's job is to kill, it is easy (perhaps necessary) to become insensitive to the animals' fear and pain. As the animals instinctively struggle for their lives, brutality is often used in order to slaughter them. Is a Vegan World Possible? If widespread veganism is not possible, and short-term and small-scale battles are the best we can do, our efforts are ultimately for nothing. But consider what would happen if the current 2,000 members of Vegan Outreach influenced one person to become vegan every five years on average, and these new vegans, in turn, also influenced one new person every five years. Although the change would be imperceptible at first, by 2057 more than 15% of the U.S. population would be vegan. Alternatives to animal products would be cheap and plentiful. People would have no excuse not to be vegan. At this pace, by 2068, the entire U.S. population would be vegan. Regardless of the specific scenario, as long as the number of vegans increases at a greater rate than the population as a whole, veganism will eventually become the norm. We are now at the low end of the acceleration; as more people accept and live the principles of animal liberation, there will be many more vegan options for everyone. The Current Vegan Movement Many people think health is the most important argument for vegetarianism, because people are selfish, and because it is the least threatening approach. Some have also felt that environmental reasons would appeal to people's concern for their own situation. These tactics have worked in reaching some people who eventually come to adopt a lifestyle of non-exploitation. But again, it has not been without a price. Exaggerations Trying to appeal to people's self-interest has led to exaggerated claims that have undermined our credibility. In the zeal to promote our cause, we tend to be uncritical of our claims, repeating anything and embracing anyone who appears to justify our position, while scoffing at and vilifying anything and anyone who doesn't agree. Literature is judged according to its shock value, rather than its accuracy and integrity. The public's attitude is that anything activists say is " wrong until repeatedly proven correct. " Every time we are shown to be wrong, the harder it becomes to have anyone listen to our message. Animal activists must only present facts that are verifiable. Motivation If we really believe that people should go vegan for their own benefit, we have no more reason for actively promoting veganism than, say, fiscal responsibility, watching less TV, not smoking, getting good grades, etc. It is likely that many people who hear us promoting veganism for health actually suspect that we are avoiding our true motivations. People are quick to jump in with, " I don't eat much red meat, mostly chicken and fish. " To this, we will be forced either to nod politely or try and counter everything they've been told about chicken and fish being healthful, making us look like we'll say anything for our side. Diets based on health claims are subject to further change based on new, low-fat animal products and fad diets (the Zone, Eat Right for Your Type, etc.). People who follow a vegetarian or vegan diet to feel healthier will resume consuming animal products if they feel no improvement. Because they do not necessarily have their heart into being vegetarian or vegan, they often will not experiment with it long enough to find a way of eating that makes them feel healthy. They then leave veganism and tell others how unhealthy it made them feel. When we present the health argument, some people will ignore it. In this case, the animals are neither better nor worse off. Some will switch to eating fish and chicken and stay there. This leads to huge increases in animal suffering. Others will switch to eating fish and chicken and eventually move to vegetarianism. This will initially lead to an increase in animal suffering, but overall will decrease animal suffering. What is the ratio of `chicken and fish eaters who never progress' to `chicken and fish eaters who eventually become vegetarian'? In the past twenty years, the number of people who say they never eat meat, poultry, or seafood has not changed, while per-capita intake of meat has actually increased (Maurer, 1997). Thus, based in large part because of the health argument, the number of animals killed has skyrocketed because of the move toward eating chicken. If all the people who have been presented with a health argument were instead presented with comprehensive, ethically-based literature (such as Why Vegan), would there be more vegetarians and vegans today? Even if Why Vegan were no more effective at initially converting people, those who are motivated to change based on ethics will be much better spokespersons for veganism. In the promotion of animal liberation, each individual's actions as a spokesperson for veganism are at least as important as the economic impact their individual choices have. The animal activist who promotes a " plant-based " diet for health reasons feeds our society's focus on selfishness by implying that animal suffering is not worthy of people's concern. It delays the time when we, as a society, will come to terms with our treatment of animals. Discussing Health Because so many people have health questions regarding a vegan diet, all activists should educate themselves with accurate and current nutritional information (we recommend The Vegetarian Way (Messina, 1996) and the American Dietetic Association's (ADA) paper on vegetarianism, both of which you can get from Vegan Outreach). That way, when people ask about health, we can confidently state that a vegan diet can be healthy and explain about which nutrients they need to be concerned. Keeping copies of the ADA's paper on hand for interested people is an effective way to help them. When answering people's questions, we like to say, " According to the ADA, such and such is true " versus, " [According to me] such and such is true. " We should bring our conversations back to the positive aspects of eating without causing cruelty to animals. As Donna Maurer concluded in her PhD dissertation (1997) about the vegetarian movement in North America, " the strategies that vegetarian groups enact to promote `healthy diets' for each individual's personal benefit inhibit people from adopting a collective vegetarian identity based on moral concern regarding human/animal relationships; without commitment to this moral concern, `being a vegetarian' is a lifestyle vulnerable to changing personal and cultural tastes. " As for environmental and human hunger reasons to be vegetarian or vegan, we need to make sure our facts are relevant, accurate, and credible. Finding facts that meet these criteria is not easy. Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating (Marcus, 1998, also available from Vegan Outreach) is currently a reliable publication of accumulated facts on these topics. Wedge Issues Wedge issues are reasons for people to dismiss us without considering what we are saying, allowing them to ignore their own culpability in practices they could not defend otherwise. The two main wedge issues hindering the spread of veganism are 1) framing animal liberation (or allowing it to be framed) in terms of animal experimentation, and 2) giving society reason to marginalize us as fanatics. Animal Experimentation The media and industries who use animals like to keep the issue of animal experimentation in the pubic eye because it polarizes the debate and removes the discussion of personal responsibility. Focusing on animal experimentation allows others to define the debate in terms of an issue that we cannot, at this time, win. Although some people react with significant emotion to images of a callous researcher and an individual suffering animal, most buy into the " your baby or your dog " appeals to personal interests. Some activists have accepted that the public is not ready to end animal experimentation if it is perceived as having any chance of helping humans. This has led to the campaign to portray animal experimentation as scientific fraud. Most animal activists are happy to believe the idea that all animal experimentation is fraud. But it seems obvious to the public that animal activists have invented the " vivisection is scientific fraud " to advance our position. (Many activists seem unaware of how this appears.) It would be a strategic move if grassroots activists did not focus on vivisection until significantly more people are vegan. Scientists and philosophers in our movement can deal with this issue much more effectively, especially in support of granting non-human primates basic rights (based on ethics rather than the contention that vivisection on primates is always scientific fraud). Fanaticism Our movement, with its moral overtones, crusading metaphors, and rigid rules, attracts people who create an atmosphere of " moral one-upmanship " – a contest of who can discover the most animal-related products. This attitude makes us appear fanatical and gives many people an excuse to ignore our message. People do not want to believe that they are supporting exploitation by eating animal products. It's somewhat straightforward to show that eating meat causes suffering, but much harder to convince them that drinking a glass of milk causes suffering. It is easy for people to dismiss us (and question our grasp of reality) when told they can't eat foods with white sugar (bone char used in some processing), a burrito/bread/bagel (the mono-/diglycerides might come from an animal rather than a plant), a veggie burger (cooked on the same grill as meat burgers), dark chocolate (residual dairy products), harvested foods (kills insects), drink beer or wine (animal products possibly used in processing), take pictures (gelatin), drive a car (animal fat used in the production of steel), ride a bicycle (animal fat used in the vulcanization of tire rubber), wear cotton clothing (animal products used in cloth production), take medicine (tested on animals), have a job (part of The System), etc. (not to mention other tacked-on agendas, such as a specific stand on abortion, a rigid political ideology, a specific religion, etc.). For millennia, one of the main building blocks of human civilization has been the use of animals as tools to serve human ends. If humanity had started out humane – with a concern for animal suffering – societies would have advanced without this reliance on animal products. The reality, though, is that people today cannot avoid all products with a connection to animals. The Vegan Community of Judgment It is imperative for us to realize that if our veganism is a statement for animal liberation, veganism cannot be an exclusive, ego-boosting club. Rather, we must create a mainstream movement. Fostering the impression that " it's so hard to be vegan – animal products are in everything " works against this. Yet it often appears that many vegans want to find new ways to distance themselves from society. An example is the contention that Tofutti (a widely available non-dairy dessert) isn't vegan (because it contains processed sugar). There seemed to be a sense of satisfaction by those who announced this – as if they had accomplished a victory by identifying another enemy. Yet the harder and more obscure we make veganism, the more we delay animal liberation by 1) causing people to give up the whole process out of frustration and 2) emphasizing animal products where the connection to animal suffering is justifiably questionable. The attractive idea behind being a " vegan " is to no longer support animal exploitation. To do this, one does not purchase products for which an animal was obviously exploited. We need people to understand that if they buy meat, eggs, and/or dairy, they are creating animal suffering – animals will be raised and slaughtered. The by-products, however, if not sold, will be thrown out or given away. People don't want to start down the road to veganism if they think it will end with them being obsessive and cut off from their friends, family, and the rest of society. The way veganism is presented to a potential vegan is of major importance. We should encourage others not to buy and eat obvious animal products. Period. They shouldn't have to worry about the minuscule amounts of animal products in order to consider themselves " vegan. " This way, people have no excuse to keep eating massive amounts of meat, cheese, and ice-cream with the rationalization that they could never be vegan because they'd have to avoid " everything. " We realize that many activists may be horrified to hear us say this. In the past, we would have felt the same way. But the animals will be better off if we allow people to feel that they have freed themselves of personal responsibility for animal suffering (i.e., if they can call themselves " vegan " ) by not eating obvious animal products. As more people take on this lifestyle, the by-products will naturally fade. We want a vegan world, not a vegan club. The Future: A New Vision Our movement needs an articulated and actionable plan for bringing about animal liberation. In the current view, we spend our energies fighting specific " battles " – plotting strategies, organizing the troops, vilifying the enemy, tending the rescued victims – where they occur and on the exploiter's terms. We need a vision of how to end the " war. " No matter how many chants we shout, how many labs we vandalize, how many sound bites we gain, how many " enemies " we " defeat, " animal liberation will not occur until we join with everyone in a vegan world. If there is to be a fundamental change in the manner in which other animals are viewed – if there is to be animal liberation – there can be no us and them. We will be a new society. In the (admittedly long-term) evolution to a vegan world, everyone is – must be – an ally at some level. There is hope for animal liberation if and only if we learn how to help people get past their wall of denial and manifest their latent compassion. To succeed, our interactions with others must be rooted in empathy and understanding – working with and from a person's motivations, fears, desires, and shortcomings. Instead of approaching with a " fighting " mindset, which necessarily makes people defensive and closed to new ideas, we should provide people with information that they can digest on their own time and act upon at a sustainable pace. We should not simply try to feel that we have won an argument with a meat eater. Rather, we need people to consider the issues and want to change. There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root ... ©1997-2000 Vegan Outreach, All rights reserved. http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocacy/path.html#civildis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2000 Report Share Posted October 2, 2000 , " Ernie Karhu " <erniekarhu@n...> wrote: > Veganism: The Path To Animal Liberation > > by Matt Ball, Jack Norris & Anne Green > I have read this before on the Vegan Outreach site and it prompted me to write them a letter with lots of praise. I have been 'trying' to become vegan this summer and the most stressful thing is wrestling with the question of what vegan really means to me. I know that people like to get very emotional about what's vegan and what's not, but to me, I see it as a way to reduce my participation in animal suffering (aware that at some point there are diminishing returns), and maybe more importantly- be a practical way to create awareness and change in others. I see veganism as a method not a religion, though I respect that each person has their own personal definition for themself. On the point of animal experimentation- I am glad that they came out and said this. At my college, the AR group (which I did not belong to) one year left leaflets out about factory farming. I read them, and it was the first time I thought about vegetarianism. I slowly started reducing my consumption of meat, successfully a few years later. However, the next year, the ar group focused exclusively on stopping experimentation in the nueroscience department. people thought they were a bunch of crazies. No more leaflets about factory farming. Mostly BC of that one leaflet the year before, I slowly learned more and more about AR. I was IN one of those neuroscience classes they protested, but had already made up my mind not to participate partly bc of the leaflet, not the protesters. G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2000 Report Share Posted October 3, 2000 Congratulations for your choice to become vegan. Bravo to everyone here who has made that same choice. I hope that you can retain your commitment to veganism and retain your current relationship to the community at large while evolving your new perspective. You don't have to isolate yourself and wrap you energies in an exclusive virtual vegan community. It is important to express your veganism in the mainstream. I believe it is important to join with others who share in the basic principles of social change, even if they have not committed to the same level of " veganism " that you have adopted. We must find ways to be examples to others and not adopt the " us against them " attitude expressed here. Veganism is not necessarily a pathology or social disease that pits people against each other as expressed on this list. I've created an alternative to vegan chaos in my list CARA-CARE CARA is compassionate animal rights activism and CARE is compassionate animal rights education. Our message is deeply rooted in Peter Singer's ANIMAL LIBERATION. Compassion is expressed in community. It is never " in your face. " This is the method that will facilitate total veganism by 2069. We don't push the term. We would prefer an evolution of vegetarian consciousness and an enlightened attitude toward all life, including that of plants. I'm noit here to trash this list either. Planet-Vegan has a distinct purpose of community for those who struggle with their own identity in life. I offer another choice for those who know who they are and are willing to take their message to the mainstream without fear, hostility and prejudice. I check this list for whatever inspiration it may yield. ~ek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.