A Debilitating Debate
Well, it happened again. The debate between “abolitionists” and “gradualists” exploded in the comments section of Eating Plants. As usual, it was a mash-up of exceedingly intelligent commentary, passion, anger, and dismissiveness. And, as usual, I’m pleased to provide a forum for these sorts of discussions and honored that so many people—including Sue Coe —participated. I remain, however, baffled at how anyone on either side of this debate can be so absolutely assured about her position when, in fact, we have zero data to determine the ultimate effectiveness of any approach to vegan activism. The entire debate is underscored with anecdotes.
And that’s okay. It’s more than okay. While it might seem defeatist to declare that “we’ll never know,” it’s not, because all that really matters at this stage of the vegan conversion project is that we get the word—literally, the word “vegan”—out there. Regrettably, we tend more often than not to introduce it through our own monumentally self-destructive infighting. All these debates do, though, is obscure the fact that, in modern commercial society, becoming part of the white noise is an essential prerequisite for recognition, and recognition is a prerequisite for change. Sophisticated vegan urbanites often think that “vegan” is globally understood. They need to get out more. Leave the comfort zone and come to Kansas. Or East Texas—where I’ll give you a little tour that might provide perspective. In any case, just get the idea out there by any non-violent means necessary.
The other bit of good news when it comes to accepting a multiplicity of approaches is that persuasiveness through rationality may be irrelevant. I know that sounds crazy. But people go vegan for more reasons than anyone could possibly compile. Rarely, though, do they go vegan exclusively because they have been convinced by a purely rational argument. That’s my sense, anyway. And if I’m even remotely correct, it renders all our self-absorbed bickering over “the best” tactic to be an utter waste of time. We may be arguing for the most sensible approach—basing our arguments on rational propositions drawn from anecdotal evidence–when, in reality, people are going to go vegan for reasons that have little to do with our own precepts for change.
Depending on what side of the bed I get out of in the morning, I spend my days optimistic or pessimistic about the future of veganism. One thing I know for sure, though, is that those of us who purport to clamor for change need to stop tearing each other to shreds over ideas that have yet to be proven true or false and, even if proven one way or another, might not matter. We need to simply push veganism into the public sphere and take it from there. None of us can connect the dots forward. No matter how right we think we are.
UPDATE: For those who don’t think the vegan word is getting out, see this: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/how-to-go-vegan/.
Hear, hear, James! (But I’d sell my soul to shelve the abolotion/welfare argument, I really would. It’s divisive and unproductive and when people outside the movement hear it, I believe it turns them off and shuts them out.)
Agreed.
I had to spend all day yesterday tied up on a legal matter and so am very sorry to have missed yesterday’s post and comment “debate”.
The only thing I would like to emphasize regarding today’s post is that this is by no means a two way debate between welfarists and so-called abolitionists. This is a three way fight and the post Humanists (we are by no means homogeneous in our opinions and a few are not even always vegan or vegetarian) have a stake in changing some minds and influencing policy. Please let me know when the next rumble takes place!
Well said James. And well needed.
P.S. Last night I had a talk with my friend and long-time vegan activist in San Francisco about this issue. Her advice: “Don’t waste another moment in this debate. Just keep doing the good work you do for animals.” I think that was very good advice, although I doubt I’ll be able to completely follow it.
Good advice, but it can be soooo hard not to weigh in!
I agree with you absolutely, James. There are as many reasons and ways to go vegan as there are vegans. I think the best that we can all do is work within our individual spheres of influence and educate those who are most like our pre-vegan selves. No one will emulate us if they can’t relate to us.
So very true. Thanks.
Haven’t commented in ages, but it’s not for lack of reading (every post!) or for appreciation (ditto). Thank you for yet another beautifully articulated piece. I echo others’ comments here, and your experience with there being so many reasons — known and unknown — for people to have their Road to Damascus moments. Yes, acknowledgement of complexity, and a good dose of perspective and humility, is appropriate.
I too live in the constant combination of hope and despair (yes, this week’s NYT, and the mainstream news coverage of Rahm Emanuel tipped the scales heavily in one direction today).
Will continue with my own multi-faceted approach (ever learning and evolving, I hope) of giving vegan cooking lessons, bringing vegan food to every occasion I attend, volunteering for MFA, writing letters, responding to mainstream media pieces, signing petitions, etc spreading the positive word any way I can, and writing checks to a number of organizations, including — yes — PETA
Good post James, though just to be clear: It places you squarely in the pro-welfare camp (welcome!), since we’re not criticizing anyone’s advocacy, or calling them counter-productive, or calling them hypocrites, or saying their work is counter-productive, etc.
We defend work on behalf of welfare, but we don’t say it’s the only thing anyone should be doing, and we admit that it’s far short of perfection. As you know, some on the anti-welfare side literally attack the motivation and ethics of people who want to improve conditions for animals (including on your post yesterday). It’s mean-spirited, and as far as I can tell, it all goes in one direction.
In short, no one on the pro-welfare side wants to be engaged in this “debate”; we sometimes defend ourselves and sometimes ignore the attacks, but we never start it and we never tell the anti-welfare side to stop (or change) their animal advocacy. When Deb says she’ll try, above, note that she is only weighing in after the anti-welfare side attacks; she would never attack a vegan post for not promoting welfare reforms. It’s all in one direction.
Of course, FS puts exponentially more resources into vegan advocacy than we do into reform advocacy–like you, we support both. Nevertheless, we get excoriated for trying to get rid of crates and cages. Even Vegan Outreach, Mercy for Animals, and the Humane League are attacked for being impure, and they do nothing but vegan advocacy. The anti-welfare side just doesn’t like that they support reform.
Anyway, if you think the attacks and debate should end, welcome to the pro-welfare side; we all agree and would prefer to work on behalf of animals, rather than engaging again in this debate.
Cheers,
Bruce
p.s. Not sure if you saw this, but FYI, Gary Francione and I discussed the topic and he posted it on his Blog, here:
http://tinyurl.com/b9hwqqq (key point: We’re abolitionists too).
Bruce, please say you don’t mean *me* when you refer to Deb! I am whole-heartedly on your side! (And said nothing about trying…mind you, I have the flu and don’t seem to be at my sharpest. Have I missed something?)
Thanks for weighing in and thanks for the great work you do for animals!
Hi Deb, sorry if I was unclear; I know you are. My point was that you would not initiate or attack anyone else.
Re: what you wrote above (“Good advice, but it can be soooo hard not to weigh in!”), my point is that you were saying that you don’t want to weigh in, but it’s hard not to when someone is attacking what you believe and saying you’re harming animals. i.e., you only weigh in when welfare activists are attacked; you don’t attack other activists. Basically, it seems unfair to me to blame the person who defends herself as though she’s an equal participant in the debate.
Sorry to have been unclear; I hope this makes sense! Thanks so much for your advocacy and compassion!
Bruce
It may well be me; as I said, I’m flu-ish! Thanks, Bruce.
Another philosophical point of view to consider: The most visible proponent of the No Kill movement in the world of animal shelters argues that it is normal to have “hopelessly incompatible positions” and “an irreconcilable divide” within any social justice movement.
Nathan Winograd claims that what might seem like mere “bickering” or “battles of egos” — “self-destructive behavior” — is “actually evidence of progress.” His rationale and the precedent for it is here: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=11263
Also, the book “Doing Democracy” lays out what author Bill Moyers (no, not Bill Moyers) calls “The Eight Stages of Social Movements.” It’s a fascinating read.
Funny coming from a man who does his utmost to demonize PETA.
Looking forward to checking it out, CQ! Thanks for posting.
Scientific research has generated a wealth of information on how people can be persuaded to alter their behaviors, yet this body of knowledge has been largely ignored by those working to improve society. Change of Heart: What Psychology Can Teach Us About Spreading Social Change brings this information to light so that non-profits, community organizers and others can make science-driven decisions in their advocacy work. The book examines over 80 years of empirical research in areas including social psychology, communication studies, diffusion studies, network systems and social marketing, distilling the highlights into easy-to-use advice and serving as a psychology primer for anyone wanting to spread progressive social change.
http://www.amazon.com/Change-Heart-Psychology-Spreading-Social/dp/159056233X
Great book! I return to it often…
That’s a great book — I second the recommendation.
As a historian, I have to challenge the claim that “we have zero data” to decide what works in the effort to protect animals. The first animal protection society (RSPCA) was established in 1824. By that point, the debate between welfarism and abolitionism had been raging for more than a generation (compare Oswald with Bentham) and it soon became clear that the welfare side had prevailed — it would receive government sanction, the vast preponderance of charitable contributions, industry support and popular respect. And yet what followed in its wake was the industrial slaughterhouse — killing on an unprecedented scale that, apart from a few hiccups during the various recessions, continued (and continues) to grow at an exponential pace. At what point do we all say: “Let’s try another approach”?
It is axiomatic that whatever an industry supports will support the growth of that industry’s profits.
No industry can be expected to support its own demise. When the animal agriculture industry funds HSUS and other animal rights organizations, we can be sure that they are not promoting veganism, which is about making that industry disappear, but quite to the contrary.
I identify with abolitionism but I’m also inclined to appreciate the strides made via welfarism. Any step to relieve the suffering of the individuals whose miserable lives might be made a little less miserable as a step towards the end of animal exploitation. These days, I stay out of the debate. There are achievements to be gained on both fronts and we should all play our part in doing what feels right to us. I agree that we have no real example to learn from in our pursuit of animal liberation. We’re dealing with a completely different animal (pun intended) I get disgusted at how much time and energy is spent pointing fingers. It’s not productive. We’re all fighting the same fight and working to raise awareness. And everyone I know who works for a so-called “welfarist” organization is an abolitionist. Let’s focus on social change together.
Wonderful. Thank you, Jenny.
“The Abolitionists” (Part 1 of 3, 53 mins): http://video.pbs.org/video/2323777396
Alternative link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/abolitionists/player
Nicely said — thank you, Jenny.
I think it’s imperative for the animals that we work for improved welfare on our way towards abolition, for all the reasons already stated. There are two yardsticks by which we can currently measure our success, and both give me hope: we know that the number of people who are vegetarian or vegan is on the rise, and we know that we are making big ag very nervous, as evidenced in numerous publications of their own when they talk about how best to combat animal rights activism. We’re making them nervous because little by little, we are succeeding! As Gandhi said (forgive me if the quote is not exact), “first they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then they fight you and then you win.” They’re fighting — and that means we’re winning. We will get there. Too slowly for our liking, I know, but we will get there.
There’s something for my advocate friends to look forward to in the New Year besides longer days. Coming out this spring, a new book by Norm Phelps. Those familiar with his writing know that Norm is a realist, but he acknowledges that his book – and his outlook for a compassionate world for animals – is unabashedly optimistic.
In its announcement for the book, Lantern Books lists at the top this recommendation among Phelps’ other advice: “The animal liberation movement must pursue a two-track strategy that embraces both abolitionist and more moderate tactics.”
http://www.lanternbooks.com/detail.html?session=&cat=&id=9781590563793.
Thanks for the head’s up on Norm Phelps’ new book. I also like his article on the same subject, where he outlines–quite convincingly I think–reasons why a two-tracked approach is better.
http://www.veganoutreach.org/articles/normphelps.html