The tension of rights and wrongs: a critique of combining rights with welfare

Posted on September 7, 2015 by orcasandanimals

funny-cartoon-car-crash-275015Welfare campaigns (for example those run by HSUS and CIWF) are not generally of particular interest for animal rights advocates. Welfare campaigns function to promote less bad treatment for animals, and that is essentially what they do. A rights perspective would say that we cannot promote welfare (from within the industry of exploitation) because to do so we would first have to accept the violation of that individual’s intrinsic rights.

So there is a difference between rights and welfare, and there is no particular requirement beyond pointing out that difference; that if you care for animals why exploit them, or support any campaign that does, when you could instead be vegan and do effective vegan / animal rights advocacy. (We can also do ‘activism’ and ‘veganism’ at the same time, there is no reason to consider them as separate entities, in fact, combining these aspects is important).

The issue arises where vegans promote or construct welfare campaigns. In the first instance it is disingenuous to do so because if you believe animals should not be exploited as per the reasons you are vegan, then why promote the exploitation of animals in various albeit possibly less harmful ways? This is where a lot of ‘conflict’ arises; originating where people bring together (1) aspects of welfare and rights, having either not realised or acknowledged the clash between them.

Those campaigns that do promote welfare fail to adequately define veganism, because veganism or rights is viewed as getting in the way of the campaign to reduce harm. The campaign (2) does not set out to abolish the industry (at least in the first instance), rather the intent is to help animals suffer slightly less miserable lives in that system of exploitation, and/or people to purchase fewer animals from that system of exploitation (these intentions are also present in an animal rights perspective (3)).

If the idea of veganism is raised then it would lead to the negation of the welfare campaign by advertently presenting the logical conclusion. In this way introducing veganism is often argued as a ‘bad’ thing, because people are ‘not rational’ and lack the capacity to make rational choices (a somewhat elitist approach). However, this approach also relies on the fact people care about animals, at least enough to engage with their campaigns, but not (they assume) enough to be availed of a vegan or rights based message (in regards to a full definition of veganism incorporating both philosophy and lifestyle).

The way forward from this situation is where rights based advocates have taken an approach that is grounded in justice, and where we adopt an intersectional approach (4) to animal rights that is supportive of *all* justice movements (within the broad human, animal, earth approaches). If we are merely campaigning for different forms of exploitation within a narrow framework of welfare there isn’t that necessary foundation for an expansive approach to justice (welfare through exploitation is not compatible with a justice perspective).

We already have the potential (5) to adopt a broad based justice approach within animal rights and by encouraging (and developing) critical thinking we can apply that method to all systems of oppression, by looking at issues of privilege (6), liberation, and oppression. We can take that broad approach in solidarity with other justice movements, and demonstrate there is no tangible barrier between them.

 

(1) I think it can be argued that when we transition to veganism, there is also a transition through the perspective of welfare to that of rights.  The paradigm may have shifted yet we can remain entangled in welfare.

(2) Reducetarianism can be taken as an example.

(3) Animal rights activism is not reliant on people going vegan ‘right now’, instead it presents a consistent rights based message (it is reasonable to assume people will gravitate toward veganism, as it can take time to learn about the practice once we have decided we no longer wish to exploit animals unnecessarily).  Tom Regan also gives the example of muddlers where people move in various ways toward animal rights.  The issue of less suffering within systems of exploitation also arises from animal rights advocacy because the industry attempts to appease a society moving towards a position of rights/veganism.

(4) Where it is claimed that ‘other’ justice movements aren’t interested in animal rights, we should not be surprised given our non-vegan world, and neither have our animal rights campaigns been constructed as an issue of justice that would appeal to other justice advocates.

(5) Particularly in relation to coalition building for animal liberation, the hidden cost of patriarchy, vegan praxis of black lives matter, critiquing privilege in animal advocacy circles.

(6) Privilege is that which we gain from discrimination.

 

Resources:

A definition of veganism from Leslie Cross (1951).

From animals to anarchism by Watkinson and O’Driscoll (2014).

The entanglements of welfare campaigns. (Orcas and animals)

The phenomenon of new welfarism. (Orcas and animals)

Welfarists do welfare by Roger Yates.

 

 

Posted in animal liberation | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Vegan cupcakes

Posted on August 24, 2015 by orcasandanimals

choc_cupcakeMuch of the recent criticism around veganism has stemmed from the reduction of veganism to a diet, so it seems useful to reflect that the vegan diet and other vegan practices originate in the vegan philosophy; and that the philosophy itself represents a justice approach through the recognition of intrinsic rights of non-human animals.

Following from this, the concept of ‘speciesism’ has been used to describe how non-human animals are given less value or worth, and given this status, humanity has deemed it reasonable to imprison and cause great suffering to animals merely because they are considered less than human. The resulting exploitative systems are not grounded in necessity, so there isn’t a justification for perpetuating these systems of wholesale suffering toward non-human animals. The question then becomes how we go about increasing awareness to counter the myth of ‘necessity’, and this has been the focus of much debate, especially where broader entanglements of oppression and the exploitative nature of capitalism have appeared to create an issue of complexity. However, the answer is not to reject veganism on the grounds that these issues are too difficult to articulate, the answer instead is to look at the history and philosophy of veganism to better understand its ethos.

When aspects of the vegan diet have been brought into contention, there seem to be two contrasting ideas. One is that food consumption forms a major part of animal suffering, so it is natural to look at this area and the changes we can make ourselves. The other is that we spend too much time looking at food and ignoring philosophy, when instead we could be discussing how the justice movement for non-human animals is tied into *all* other justice movements (total liberation).

So when we are undermining those ‘vegan myths’, food does play a substantial part, especially regarding the propaganda of the deed, so this can be identified as significant when introducing other people to aspects of veganism. However, issues arise around the message in our advocacy, and how it is that we introduce new ideas in a way that plants seeds, encourages, supports, and allows for a transformation from treating animals in a certain way, toward a recognition that animals don’t exist for us to use, and a realisation that they have their own lives to live.

On this theme recent concerns raised by DxE have been loosely constructed around the myth that ‘veganism = cupcakes’, which has the effect of erasure in regard to the vegan ethos. Contemporary descriptions of veganism have tended to be practice oriented rather than philosophy oriented, and one particular example includes the ‘You don’t have to be vegan to consume vegan products’ campaign The Vegan Society ran in 2014. This particular approach has created issues within the movement, because instead of being informed by the philosophy, people have pointed to certain ‘limitations’ of practice based upon the reconstruction of vegan myths and stereotypes, with the aim of legitimising their own particular brand of animal advocacy.

This has led to perpetuating certain negative vegan stereotypes such as ‘extreme’, ‘purist’, ‘all or nothing’, ‘inflexible’, ‘exclusive’, ‘divisive’, in order to suggest that we need to advocate for animals in a way that mainstream society can relate to. However, mainstream society is itself based upon exploitation, so constructing campaigns around this issue merely entrenches those ideas yet further (instead of perhaps focussing on understated values in society such as liberté, égalité, fraternité (1)). So instead of relying on myths to construct theories, advocates might look to the vegan definition and find ways to articulate a more authentic understanding that is based on philosophy and lifestyle, rather than the  reduction of veganism to the consumption of cupcakes.

The following statement is the generally accepted definition of veganism, with some emphasis added.

“A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

 

(1)  Mutual Aid is a better term than the patriarchal implication of fraternité.

 

References.

Animal Rights, Multiculturalism, and The Left.  A talk by Will Kymlicka.

‘‘The Greatest Cause on Earth’: The Historical Formation of Veganism as an Ethical Practice.’ Written by Matthew Cole. Featured in “The Rise of Critical Animal Studies: From the Margins to the Centre.” Edited by Nik Taylor and Richard Twine (2014).

Veganism Defined by Leslie Cross.

Posted in animal liberation | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Vegan cupcakes

Animal Rights Zine and Info Display at VegfestUK London

Posted on August 18, 2015 by orcasandanimals

As announced earlier this year there will be an ‘Animal Rights Zine and Info’ display at the London Vegfest event on October 10th 11th.  The display itself will be situated in the area by the cinema entrance on level 3, and for those people arriving early there are some free zines that will be given away.

As many people know, one of the main features of the London Vegfest this year is the People’s Vegan Activist Summit taking place on the Sunday, which is due to host a number of speakers exploring a wide range of different issues in relation to veganism.  So the feature of animal rights zines will accompany this wide ranging discussion, and is set to include the following pamphlets:

From animals to anarchism  – An open letter taking a critical look at the politics of animal rights and animal liberation (can be read for free here).

Animal Liberation and Social Revolution  – A vegan perspective on anarchism or an anarchist perspective on veganism. (can be read for free here).

Nailing Descartes to the Wall: Animal Rights, Veganism and Punk Culture  – Exploring the idea that veganism, and concern for the plight of animals are commonplace in punk. This zine investigates the issues and tensions from a UK context.

Challenging Ideas on Human-Nonhuman Relations  – Essay on the ethics of the ways in which humans use other animals.

The display will also include posters and information from the Vegan Intersectionality Project.

vip

 

 

 

 

Posted in animal liberation | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Animal Rights Zine and Info Display at VegfestUK London

‘Veganism is easy!’ But where does privilege fit in?

Posted on August 3, 2015 by orcasandanimals

Winter-Activities-Tobagganing-700x500From time to time a discussion arises involving the idea that veganism is ‘easy’, and whilst it is fair to say that we are not going to advocate veganism as ‘difficult’, we cannot neglect that for many people veganism is simpler based upon circumstances within society. But when we are talking about the ease of veganism, we are almost always talking about the vegan diet, and rarely the approach of veganism itself.

The vegan diet is part of a vegan approach that originates from the vegan philosophy (essentially a philosophy of intrinsic ‘rights’) that opposes the exploitation of non-human animals. So once we engage with that perspective we can begin to seek out those ‘vegan’ alternatives that don’t originate in non-human animal exploitation.

The definition of veganism presents the issue like this (emphasis added): “a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

When we seek to adopt a way of living that excludes the exploitation of non-human animals as far as is possible and practicable, we can see that it is dependent on a society and culture where there are different barriers (1) toward adopting vegan practices. These barriers (which can also reinforce one another) vary for each person, so we need to examine how they restrict or prevent those initial ‘vegan ideas’ from developing into a vegan practice or ‘lifestyle’.

When recognising our different concepts of ‘ease’ within the dietary aspect of veganism, we can encourage people to do the best they can as far as is possible and practicable, and recognise that it is not straightforward being vegan in a non vegan world. We can see the importance of creating networks of support that can help people with their veganism, and which can also help to inform our own vegan advocacy in more radical ways that break down the barriers reinforced by privilege. We can then be critical of the structure of society that impedes or even prevents access to vegan food.   So within our advocacy there also needs to be an examination of how we can alter society so it is amenable for everyone to access healthy, nutritious vegan food.  This has been described by Carrie Freeman as an approach ‘where persuasive messages are grounded in the advocate’s ethical philosophy to promote a transformation in worldviews not just behaviours’.

 

(1) These ‘barriers to vegan practice’  are elements of social division that perpetuate inequality in society.  So for example, sexism, racism, ageism and ableism.  These barriers to vegan practice are regularly overlooked from positions of privilege, so for example, it isn’t the ‘fault’ of a ten year old that they cannot put vegan philosophy into practice, instead it is dependent on access to resources, which are determined by people in positions of power.  This system is often casually reinforced (led by those that dismiss these issues as ‘not about the animals’) and creates difficulty for implementing vegan practice.

 

Resources:

‘Critiquing Privilege in Animal Activist Circles’ with Jacqueline Morr, Amie Breeze Harper, lauren Ornelas.

‘The Hidden Cost of Patriarchy’ with Jennai Bundock.

‘Vegan Praxis of Black Lives Matter’ with Amie Breeze Harper.

 

Posted in animal liberation | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ‘Veganism is easy!’ But where does privilege fit in?

An animal rights view of flexitarianism.

Posted on July 25, 2015 by orcasandanimals

This is a short article that takes a critical look at flexitarianism from an animal rights perspective; examining the five points of flexitarian philosophy as described by the Flexitarian Bristol campaign.  The group itself aims to raise awareness of the potential benefits in reducing our reliance on meat based meals, with the primary motivation to bring about a change in lifestyle based on consideration for our health and the environment.

The following are the five points of flexitarian philosophy, with additional comments:

1. ‘Thriving

This is a movement underpinned by a love of life, a wish to live fully without harming the ability of others to do the same. Food is an important part of this – good, well-produced food puts a spring in our step and helps us tread lightly on the world.’

These are good intentions.

2. ‘Inclusive

Moving from eating meat 100% of meals to 50% makes just as much difference as moving from 50% of meals to none. You don’t need strict categories – if you don’t eat meat at every meal you’re flexitarian. We’re all starting from different levels of consumption but we can all be part of the same process, approaching reduction in a way and at the speed that’s right for us.’

It certainly is inclusive, as it can be argued that pretty much everyone fits into this category, as it is a basic reflection of current society. That is, no one eats meat at every meal time, and we almost all consume a variety of plant based foods on any given day. It is certainly also a flexible approach, as would be expected, and approaching reduction in a way that suits us is a very relaxed approach to the issue of animal exploitation. Yet it does appear as if continual reduction is the aim, until at some point we stop the consumption of meat, and presumably all animal products.

3. ‘Encouraging

We want to focus on celebrating good food, promote choice and recognise the eateries that are leading the way for modern sustainable eating. There is incredible diversity in vegetables, fruits and pulses and we want to demonstrate their huge potential for creating meals which are tasty and exciting as well as healthy.’

The focus on vegetables, fruits and pulses is encouraging, as many venues do not cater particularly well for people consuming a plant based diet; so there is certainly a need to focus on this area within flexitarianism. If people are going to feel able to order a vegan dish alongside their regular choices then the food has to be of an equal or better standard. People still predominantly view the consumption of animal flesh as a ‘treat’ when it is a special occasion, or perhaps as an opportunity to consume a more ‘select’ piece of flesh, so the alternatives would have to rate highly in order for them to have equal appeal.

4. ‘Pragmatic

The evidence base suggests that eating less meat and dairy will, as a rule of thumb, have positive health and environmental outcomes. But we understand that everyone has real lives, different priorities and diverse commitments. Flexitarian diets can be just that: flexible. Instead of following dogmatic rules you can balance your current situation with future benefits for yourself and the planet.’

From the pragmatic point of view people are really let off the hook regarding a fundamental change to their lifestyle, especially when we include the perspective of animal sentience. As outlined earlier in the section entitled ‘Thriving’:

‘This is a movement underpinned by a love of life, a wish to live fully without harming the ability of others to do the same.’

This statement automatically excludes non-human animals from the position of ‘others’, as it is the very consumption of animals, driven by the ideology behind that consumption, that causes suffering, where the systems that are created prevent animals from thriving as a matter of course. For instance, most people view cows as commodities, and we can identify the suffering that takes place when we merely regard cows as having extrinsic value (that is, value from our own perspective). However, when we refuse to view animals as property, we can recognise animals as being subjects of a life, who have an intrinsic right not to suffer at the hands of humanity.

Further, the ‘dogmatic rules’ of veganism, are not dogmatic at all. The vegan philosophy and practice are laid out to help people understand the principles of veganism and how they can be practiced ‘as far as is possible and practicable’ and with the necessary intent (‘seeking’) that is vital to the process. So when we recognise that we don’t want animals to suffer unnecessarily, we can take action to put the vegan philosophy into practice.

5. ‘Collaborative

Healthy, sustainable food is a huge strength of Bristol. We work together with forward-thinking organisations and individuals to ensure less and better meat is included on the agenda and gets the attention it deserves.’

This is a situation where there is an intent to encourage establishments to provide ‘humane’ meat; though in reality it merely represents industry propaganda that distracts from the fact animals suffer throughout their brief existence, and on into the slaughterhouse. Whilst it can be argued there is the possibility of less suffering, there is still suffering, and if we don’t want to become an integral part of that suffering then we need to seek out those plant based alternatives to animal based meals. This does not mean we cannot ‘collaborate’ with restaurants to provide vegan dishes. Where restaurants have vegetarian dishes we can help them to veganise those dishes so they are suitable for omnivores, vegetarians and vegans. This is merely best practice for most businesses that have little concern for the ethics of eating, as it helps them appeal to a larger market.

 

In conclusion, I believe there are good intentions within flexitarianism regarding non-human animals, the environment and health, as evident in the philosophy, but there is room for criticism in regard to the perception of non-human animals as property, because when we adopt an animal rights perspective flexitarianism falls at the first hurdle (1). Flexitarianism instead seems to present a softly softly approach to increasing plant based foods for people to eat, yet it does little to examine the uncomfortable truths surrounding the lives of those that are taken for ‘food’. Whilst mainstream society continues to believe that animal exploitation is an integral part of human existence, it is reasonable to believe that people will not give up consuming animals for pleasure (and not just for food). Yet, when we are vegan, and promote veganism, it is likely there will be a gradual shift toward veganism. Just so when we promote animal rights, there will likely be a shift in welfare standards because of the efficacy of the rights based argument. So we can present a challenge to animal consumption, because we rightly feel uncomfortable with the continued exploitation and suffering inflicted upon non-human animals, especially in circumstances where an alternative way of living is readily available to us.

 

(1) It is fair to say that someone could consume a plant based diet and call themselves flexitarian. Some people might find this to be a more helpful ‘label’ (at least temporarily) as it doesn’t present a direct challenge to other people.

 

Links.

Flexitarian Bristol

The film ‘Live and let Live’

Vegan Bristol

 

Posted in animal liberation | Tagged , , | Comments Off on An animal rights view of flexitarianism.

Veganism in a violent society.

Posted on July 20, 2015 by orcasandanimals

Banksy_Flower_Throw__00016.1435110346.168.168*This is a piece originally submitted to Project Intersect, ‘an anarcha-feminist zine focusing on ethical veganism, activism, & the collective struggle against capitalist patriarchy. . ‘  The title of the second zine in the series is ‘on violence’, and more information can be found by following this link.*

 

A standard definition of veganism is that ‘the word “veganism” denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practicable — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.’

An important question regarding violence and veganism is how the broader philosophy of veganism fits into a capitalist society where violence is endemic. Veganism in western society is generally reliant on the capitalist economy, albeit in a way that attempts to exclude non-human animals. So when we perceive this society to be predicated upon the exploitation and discrimination of people, we can ask whether this situation can be reconciled within the philosophy of veganism; and the short answer to that question is no. Instead, the emphasis needs to be on a broader political philosophy to concurrently oppose the system of domination, exploitation and division expressed through class, race, species, gender, to include all forms of division and hierarchy utilised by capitalist society to maintain the system of domination.

The challenge to veganism has been set out in the pamphlet ‘from animals to anarchism’, where the authors argue for the integration of vegan praxis and anarchism, so the various forms of discrimination and oppression can be challenged equally across the spectrum, and our activity directed at the heart of the system. If we focus on the rights of either women, non-human animals, people of colour, without acknowledging the system of oppression, then far from our activity being liberatory, we (tacitly at least) accept or ignore the structure of oppression when applied to others. It would reflect the criticism often cited toward animal rights ‘single issue campaigns’. Where for instance, people have campaigned for the freedom of orcas, but have neglected the structurally identical position of seals or penguins. In a different way, when someone self identifies as a woman, and person of colour it makes sense to address both those experiences of oppression when they are mutually reinforcing (1) (2). We therefore aim to confront the system that underpins exploitation and oppression through the false demarcations apparent in current society.

Veganism itself sets out to address all forms of exploitation toward animals, and therefore should naturally include human animals. For this reason it is inconsistent to argue for the cessation of exploitation regarding cows, pigs and dogs, yet believe it reasonable to ignore the situation of people enslaved on a tea plantation. It can be argued that it does not matter where people focus their efforts to confront this systemic issue of exploitation in society, though we do need to undermine that structure through increasing awareness of the presence of other systemic struggles, and draw them together. This means we can bring attention to the structure of hierarchy and exploitation, and explore alternative ways to live that more closely reflect beliefs in equality, mutual aid and freedom. If we are serious about addressing the situation of non-human animal exploitation then we need to look at the system which perpetuates the exploitation of human and non-human animals, whilst also reflecting on the deleterious impact this society has upon the environment.

This isn’t to say that anarchism can offer a carefully laid out plan for action, as there are many challenges. One such challenge comes from the anarchists that demonstrate little consideration for the lives of non-human animals, believing they are not worthy of meaningful consideration, or claiming that issues of human and non-human animal exploitation are mutually exclusive. There are also some libertarians that emphasise the freedom of self over freedom for ‘others’ (3). This is where the contention of ‘freedom to’ and ‘freedom from’ arises. This case can be exemplified where some libertarians believe the freedom to consume a beef burger carries a greater weight than for animals to be free from a situation of exploitation. This approach can be viewed as a ‘freedom to violate’, and reflects the perpetuation of learned social norms and desires found in contemporary society.

Where anarchists have a shared perspective is in the state seeking to monopolise and normalise its own use of coercion and violence for control. This is not something we are trying to change, rather it is something we are trying to end (4). So our energy ought not be wasted with appeals to government for changes to society, but our appeal ought to be for people to join the struggle against the institutional violence of the state (5), to take back power (6), and find subversive ways to interact that will lead to situations where discrimination no longer has value or relevance. This will require changes in our behaviour (learning and unlearning) to allow us to be consistent with our values, and veganism represents an intrinsic part of that philosophy; one which can be initiated (as far as is possible and practicable) so we can progress beyond the violent system of exploitation that harms both human and non-human animals, and the environment we live in.

 

Resources.

‘From animals to anarchism’. Watkinson and O’Driscoll. (2014)

‘How Nonviolence Protects the State’. Gelderloos. (2007)

 

(1) Loretta Ross discusses the origin of the phrase ‘women of color’.

(2) ‘Why intersectionality can’t wait‘ by Kimberlé Crenshaw.

(3) The Zapatistas say: “For everyone, everything. For us, nothing” (Para todos todo, para nosotros nada).

(4) Marcuse is particularly interesting on this point.

(5) Peter Gelderloos discusses different interpretations of ‘violence’ conducted by the state and the struggle against the state.

(6) We can see in most countries that the state, those with vested interests in capitalism, or armed groups pursuing their own agenda, do not hesitate to use force in order to promote or protect their interests. This results in the marginalisation and repression of dissenting communities and voices. Many communities fight back against this form of oppression. For example.

 

Posted in animal liberation | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Veganism in a violent society.

One world. Many lives. Our ‘choice’?

Posted on July 12, 2015 by orcasandanimals

The current Vegan Society slogan is ‘One world. Many lives. Our choice’, and whilst it can be said there is one world experienced through many lives, there appears to be a certain issue with the claim that veganism is ‘our choice’.

The word ‘choice’ is used by many people when advocating veganism, and this includes the abolitionists that use it to mitigate the claim they are just ‘telling people what to do’. However, they also add the prefix ‘moral obligation’ to circumvent the troubling notion they could be offering people the choice to participate in the exploitation of non-human animals.

When we talk about choice, we automatically overlook non-human animals that are necessarily forced into a system that brings inevitable suffering. Even when the ‘choice’ we are advocating is underpinned by veganism, it still originates from a position of domination.  So for example, ‘these are the sound arguments in favour of veganism, but at the end of the day, it is your choice.’

It is certainly true from an anthropocentric perspective that it is a ‘choice’ that humans can make, and it is also true that people are not compelled to become vegan, yet this position overlooks the argument that non-human animals possess intrinsic rights. To resolve this issue, it seems the least we can do is to avoid appearing to offer the ‘choice’ to exploit non-human animals, instead we could offer an opportunity for people to be consistent with their fundamental beliefs. That is those beliefs almost everyone shares, where non-human animals should not have to suffer unnecessarily, and where we can put that belief into practise through veganism.

 

 

*I also have an issue with the term ‘many lives’, where veganism is concerned with exploitation, the phrase ‘many lives’ overlooks the exploitative nature of capitalism, and the presence and impacts of social division.  Though it is essentially just a slogan, it seems there could be a different one that would better reflect the vegan philosophy.

Posted in animal liberation | Tagged , , | Comments Off on One world. Many lives. Our ‘choice’?

Summon The Vegan Police

Posted on July 10, 2015 by orcasandanimals

vegan-police The Vegan Police typically refers to a group of people that go around ‘policing’ vegan practise. There is only one problem… it is not possible to police vegan practise. Instead it is very much up to the individual how they demonstrate veganism within the constraints of modern society. Some things are easier than others, like choosing not to go to an aquarium or zoo. Though perhaps that isn’t so easy if your school is trying to force you to go, which is why we need to be aware of the structural forms of oppression that exist within society.

There is no 100% vegan, or 99.9% vegan, or 70% vegan, these benchmarks just don’t exist. This is because veganism is essentially unorthodox in a non-vegan world, where we experience varying amounts of privilege (that can make veganism ‘easier’), and have different life experiences that people cannot possibly know about. So the answer here is to be vegan ‘as far as is possible and practicable’, so once we have taken the philosophy on board, we do the best we can to adhere to the practices of veganism:

“A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

Some people say they don’t want to be associated with veganism because they see it as having negative connotations. But what really seems to be happening here, is that people don’t want to be associated with (for instance) the Beyoncé shaming or the Miley Cyrus shaming that takes place. Part of this issue appears to be based upon media [mis]representation of people we know nothing about. Though where we refer to the behaviour of shaming, of which veganism is just one weapon, it really is something to be appalled by. Yet, it isn’t veganism that is at fault, it is the people who are using it as a stick to hit other people. This form of behaviour appears to be what needs to be called out, rather than sweeping that behaviour behind ‘vegan policing’.

The Vegan Police have also been summoned to describe behaviour toward people that aren’t vegan, which seems to suggest that vegans ought to diminish their advocacy in the face of the dominant culture, and it is fair to say that many omnivores would prefer it that way as well. Sometimes it is easier to ignore people that don’t make a fuss, at the same time, this ‘fuss’ might also trigger omnivores to contemplate issues of animal exploitation.  At the end of the day we should be critically supportive of different approaches, recognising that people view the issue of advocacy in different ways, and that we can also adapt our approach to suit different situations.

The Vegan Police have also become a handy tool for people who want to hold onto the vegan ‘label’ whilst choosing to consume animal products, but are uncomfortable that people keep reminding them of the vegan definition. This term was originally coined to oppose animal exploitation as far as is possible and practicable, and if you call yourself ‘vegan’, then that is essentially what you are ‘signing up’ to do. Though it is also worth remembering that it is an ongoing process, rather than a point where we become members of a ‘vegan club’.

When the vegan diet is discussed, it is in reference to products that don’t contain any animal ingredients. However, you can intentionally consume animal ingredients and still be vegan if it is actually essential to do so, or if it is a mistake, where the intent remains to ‘seek to exclude’. But I wouldn’t go on a vegan forum and let people know I had to eat an animal, unless I was explicitly looking for ways to avoid doing that in future. You have to wonder why another vegan would be supportive of animal consumption. That isn’t to say we should shame people in any way, instead we can be supportive and help people look at ways to put their beliefs into practise, making veganism easier for people, and also bearing in mind the society we presently live in, and how that needs to change if we want to see veganism flourish.

 

Further reading:

‘From animals to anarchism‘ by Watkinson and O’Driscoll (2014).

 

Posted in animal liberation | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Summon The Vegan Police

The entanglements of welfare campaigns.

Posted on July 1, 2015 by orcasandanimals

329A standard definition of veganism is that ‘the word “veganism” denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.’

Many vegans advocate welfare campaigns that promote better treatment for non-human animals from within that system of exploitation, (in different possibly less harmful ways) and it is interesting to consider how this fits into vegan philosophy and practise. The issue of animal welfare is often framed as caring about non-human animals, but there is a difference between caring about animals within the constraints of that system of exploitation, and the caring and opposition that can take place when viewed from an animal rights perspective.

The animal rights movement has sometimes been called the ‘animal confusion movement’, because vegans have a tendency to support campaigns or organisations that make the claim ‘we are all heading in the same direction’, so all animal campaigns are necessarily good campaigns, because they raise awareness of the situation of exploited animals. However, whilst it is true that awareness is being raised, it is difficult to identify their usefulness when so many different messages compete within that space.

So for instance, within the different organisations, there is support for ending dolphin slaughter in Japan, whilst others support welfare campaigns for pigs and chickens in the United States. There are campaigns to stop eating dogs in China, but organisations also promote regulation of the dairy industry. There is support for campaigns freeing orcas, but they concurrently overlook the situation of penguins or sea lions. There is also opposition to welfare reforms for the orcas at Seaworld. Whaling should end. Go vegetarian! Meatless Monday. Awards for ‘humane’ meat distributors. Go vegan! Stop live exports! Empty the tanks! Ban bullhooks. Ban snares. Ban fox hunting. Stop the cull. Abolish vivisection. Go ‘cruelty free’. Don’t eat illegally caught fish. Stop shark finning. Save moon bears.

These campaigns are usually based on the sound intentions people have toward caring about non-human animals. However, many ‘animal rights’ organisations present a disparate message by combining animal rights and welfare positions, and adopt a different view on each issue, sometimes welfare, sometimes abolition or rights based, and sometimes no position at all. Within these groups it is interesting to look for the question of why animals should be used at all? Or is it clear from their activities how they believe that issue can best be resolved?

The messages arising from the ‘animal rights’ movement are not always aligned to veganism; and it is difficult to expect people to understand what we are campaigning for when this is the accepted approach. The entanglements of welfare and rights create complexity, and complex situations have a tendency to perpetuate the status quo. This situation can also act as a disincentive for people to continue their own critical journey around animal rights in favour of passing responsibility to those with ‘expertise’, or the ‘professionals’, so people join mainstream organisations and take part in their campaigns rather than valuing their own ideas, and deciding what they believe needs to happen. One consequence of this situation could be that people end up supporting sexist, racist, classist and ableist campaigns, because the welfare/rights approach tends to support the view that to be critical is (amongst others) negative, divisive, and inherently harmful to animals.

It could be said that animals have moved out of focus in favour of a corporate approach of growth and income maximisation, and this may explain how campaigning organisations have chosen the various approaches within their overall ‘strategy’. For if they believe ‘improving’ the welfare of pigs is the way forward, why not regulate and legislate for humane dog farming in China? Or do the same with fur farming? Why do those industries require abolition? Why does the campaign against orca exploitation not recognise the desperate welfare agenda of Sea World in its attempt to placate protesters and consumers? The very same welfare reforms that are utilised to placate people concerned with other forms of animal consumption.

If you take the perspective of animal use, then it is a position that all animal use/exploitation should be avoided as far as is possible and practical, which requires the recognition of intrinsic rights (1). It is clear that we are not trying to achieve increased regulation or improved welfare, we are instead campaigning to abolish that exploitative industry, whilst demonstrating an alternative way to live. Of course it is better if animals suffer less within that system of exploitation, and by using the orca example we can argue that can happen by promoting abolition. Too many times we have been sucked in by an industry that has callously used the fact we care about animals to help perpetuate that system of exploitation (2).

When we take a clear position on ‘use’ we can talk about abolishing animal entertainment that allows us to talk about orcas in a way that includes sea lions and penguins, or to talk about penguins that allows us to include sea lions, orcas, pigs, cows and dogs. When we underpin the connections between various forms of animal exploitation with the vegan philosophy, we provide that necessary link to animal liberation. This allows us to go further and look at the structural issues at play that maintain the system of animal exploitation. So for instance, how the animal industry collaborates with government, and how laws sustain exploitative practices. How power relations mean that animals can be put into zoos without any genuine consideration for their own interests. How animals become commodities and how that allows us to use them as we see fit. We can recognise the issues with hierarchy and division and explore how that applies to other social movements. We can do these things because we are not bogged down by welfare reform.

Sometimes it is believed that if we are opposed to the exploitation of animals it follows that we cannot consider the well being of animals in those situations to which we are opposed. The reason most of us are activists is because of the situation non-human animals find themselves, and we have been motivated to do something about that. But we can help animals without engaging in the welfare campaigns that are concerned with treatment. So rescuing animals is a good thing to do, exposing situations of animal exploitation, supporting sanctuaries, organising film showings, protests and outreach events, those (single issue) campaigns based on abolishing certain forms of animal use when they are codified with vegan principles (3).

This means to say that we can create campaigns that are based on vegan philosophy. That doesn’t mean that *veganism* itself needs equal prominence in any campaign, but it does need to be signposted for people to see we are not dividing animals into groups that we care about whilst overlooking others, (essentially a class based speciesism) or failing to provide the means to address the issue of animal exploitation in the most effective way (veganism).

The property paradox.

So whilst many animal rights organisations do some good things, their overall strategy is flawed.  As vegans we ought to reject the commodity status of animals, but that happens to be something welfare campaigners (and incidentally vegetarians) implicitly accept within their own campaigns. This is an irreconcilable position (4) because they not only fail to question or challenge the property status of animals, they are actually engaging in, and reinforcing that situation.

We can choose not to support the confusing welfare/rights organisations that implicitly reinforce the property status of animals, but that does not mean the well resourced ‘mainstream’ welfare campaigns cannot be useful for animal rights activists in various ways. We can discuss and examine their pitfalls, and notice how they have the potential to be useful vehicles for promoting veganism and animal rights.

One example could be a campaign like Meat Free Monday, which isn’t particularly useful to vegans as it stands. However, where it can be useful is when we convince the cafes taking part in the promotion to veganise their extra vegetarian options, therefore appealing to a market of meat eaters, vegetarians and vegans. You can then ask them to put those vegan dishes on the menu all week, so that it becomes a destination for vegans who then demand (5) more and different types of food.

Other welfare campaigns can be approached in different ways, where we provide a more radical animal rights message, even though we don’t endorse or promote the campaign itself.  We can use that opportunity to promote ideas (6) to people that are already thinking and acting along the lines of ‘helping animals’. This is an example of the ‘strategic’ campaigning that people sometimes believe is not compatible with positions of abolition. Where it is possible to go out into the world and find different ways to promote animal rights that is a reflection, rather than a compromise of vegan philosophy.

 

 

(1) That is, we don’t have the right to affirm the exploitation and consumption of non–human animals.
(2) Farmers go so far as to sell animals at above market prices so they can be saved from the abattoir. The following day the sheds are replenished, whilst the practice becomes more profitable and attractive. This can allow the farmer to appear more ‘compassionate’ or beyond criticism, because activists are reliant on the farmer’s goodwill to allow them to save animals.
(3) It is also worth considering that campaigns underpinned by veganism can deter racists from getting involved, because the philosophy of veganism is aligned with that of the broader social justice movement.
(4) It requires the rejection of vegan philosophy.
(5) A demand supplemented by meat reducers, vegetarians and flexitarians.
(6) We’re introducing veganism and animal rights ideas for people to think about, and endorsing them through our own practise. The idea of incremental change, where people mull over these issues and make changes on their own terms is something Tom Regan called muddling, which he placed alongside DaVincians and Damascans as the way people become animal rights advocates.

 

 

Further references:

‘From animals to anarchism‘ by Watkinson and O’Driscoll (2014)

 

Posted in animal liberation | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The entanglements of welfare campaigns.

The phenomenon of ‘new welfarism’.

Posted on June 3, 2015 by orcasandanimals

Veganismus_logo.svgIt may seem consistent that vegans would promote vegan philosophy and practice. However, this is not always the case, and part of the reason could be that many of the large North American animal campaigning organisations adopted an approach that operates at the lowest common denominator for change, where they have channelled a common desire to care about animals into tepid reforms of exploitative practices. The recent Walmart (non-binding) agreement to improve animal ‘welfare’ is a case in point, where organisations are shown to celebrate and perpetuate ideas of ‘progress’, when in reality there is little evidence things have changed, or when they believe the exploitation of non-human animals will eventually end. Though these organisations (essentially businesses 1) are often run by vegans or have vegan staff they maximise their potential influence by promoting small incremental changes in ‘treatment’, rather than promoting a paradigm shift to address the issue of ‘use’ in a way that is compatible with a vegan perspective.

Some advocates believe that animal liberation is best served by withdrawing the challenge to animal use (as discussed between Francione and Friedrich), and instead place the emphasis on reducing suffering, because this tactic is said to be more effective in bringing forward the ultimate goal of animal liberation. It is the belief that progress is achieved by people reducing (or merely changing) their animal consumption, because they argue it is something attainable, compared to campaigning for people to end their consumption of animals entirely. This approach of incremental change also has the effect of enabling organisations to engage with the animal industrial complex for their own gain through agreements, publicity, self-promotion and partnerships.

The foundation for the new welfarist perspective is the idea that people require ‘softening’ 2 before they make an eventual ‘leap’ to veganism – that is, these organisations still believe in veganism itself (as an ‘ideal’), as it is the chosen practise of many at the top of these organisations. However, this ‘softening’ does not allow veganism to be presented in a clear or coherent way. This is a different approach from the ‘ripened by human determination’ that Donald Watson spoke of. The difference is apparent among new welfarist activists, where they believe the recipient of their message hasn’t the potential to make changes when presented with a vegan perspective.

As such, veganism tends to be framed by new welfarists as advocating ‘all or nothing’ when the point of education could be that we describe our lived reality of veganism, and how that compares with the generally accepted definition. Telling people ‘how to live their lives’ or demanding people ‘go vegan right now’, is a false polarisation that rarely demonstrates (in my view) the reality of vegan campaigning from any perspective. Instead, this has more to do with vegaphobic propaganda, internalised both in and outside the movement, rather than an issue with promoting veganism itself. Being honest about veganism is not a demand for other people to do as you do, it is meant as a challenge to a belief system, and an opportunity to engage with ideas.

Some vegans tend to talk about vegetarianism instead of veganism, and others talk about their ‘flexibility’ where they intentionally consume non-vegan food. This lack of ‘purity’ it is claimed, leads people to be more open to the ideas of ‘veganism’ because they get to see that it isn’t a ‘strict’ discipline. So maybe they aren’t ‘vegan’ in all situations because some situations might be inconvenient, difficult, or a struggle, so the easy way in consuming animal products is sought. This isn’t to say that on a case by case basis there may not be situations following an explanation of veganism, where a mistake is made and non-vegan food consumed. There are likely to be issues in any learning process in a vastly non-vegan world. For people that are new (though rarely these days in western society will someone not have heard of veganism at all) to veganism there are going to be plenty of situations where learning can take place, and there will always be opportunities to learn no matter how long we have been vegan. However, instead of aiming at something that is less than vegan for our practise, we can be consistent as far is possible and practicable, and ensure exploited animals are kept visible.

The question of purity also appears on various ‘vegan’ facebook pages.  I haven’t seen much evidence of the ‘vegan police’ 3 dissuading potential vegans with harsh criticism and general intolerance; (I am not saying they don’t exist, rather they seem to be in the minority, and should not garner much attention unless they need to be challenged for an unreasonable claim) instead, identifying ‘policing’ seems to be reliant on perspective and interpretation.  So when someone says ‘I’m vegan but still haven’t given up cheese’ it isn’t surprising that people clarify why this isn’t vegan, so we can draw attention to that issue whilst also supporting a move toward veganism. If someone else approaches a forum saying they are hoping to transition to veganism, the responses tend to be positive and helpful, with advice and personal experience given. Being true to the definition of veganism isn’t about being puritanical, it is more about being honest. Supporting the exploitation of animals whilst people transition isn’t a useful (or realistically vegan) form of assistance, nor is it what you might expect from a vegan group.

This is because we are not trying to assuage the concerns of people in their exploitation of non-human animals, instead we are trying to help people understand the issue with which we are engaging. Honesty can replace the dishonesty we find so often in contemporary politics, corporate marketing strategies, and subsequently society itself. Though this culture plays a part in maintaining animal use, it is also the unequal structure of society that undermines the practice of veganism, as for some it is easier to adopt vegan practices than others. However, this ought not affect the intent or recognition of animal rights, instead it should fuel a broader effort to bring about a society that would reflect equality and mutual aid, so that we can more readily practise our beliefs.

Further criticism for new welfarism can be directed toward Mercy For Animals, Peta and Farm Sanctuary. These groups have vegan directors and tend to promote ‘veganism’ in some way, whilst they simultaneously support exploitation through partnering with the animal industry. This is a speciesist strategy that some organisations adopt in order (they allege) to reduce animal suffering. But instead they end up reinforcing the normativity of exploitation, which in itself does nothing to challenge the commodity status of animals.

It is important to engage with people that exploit animals through consumption (in ways that can increase awareness, leading to succour for non-human animals). Yet the animal industry is fully aware of its complicity, and their continued propaganda for animal consumption can be reinforced by groups such as Peta when they become part of that same propaganda, rather than providing a consistent challenge to industry. As Roger Yates says, let the welfarists do welfarism and the people that believe in rights based advocacy do that. The mixed messages of groups promoting welfare and an incompatible veganism do little to present ideas of animal rights in a clear manner. Instead, they fudge the issue. Opportunities to pressure industry and their powerful supporters have been lost by ‘animal rights’ groups that have collaborated and in some cases celebrated the exploitation of animals.

The approach of new welfarism is also undermined by the argument that promoting veganism, and exposing various forms of animal use can influence industry to make welfare changes, where they adapt to increasing consumer scepticism. So when taking this view we see that animals can suffer less, regardless of whether the new welfarist groups are directly involved. It could even be argued that greater changes might have been made without the support of animal groups that have reassured consumers about their support for exploitation.

When groups openly collaborate with an industry that harms animals, it is a strategy that is going to draw scepticism from social justice advocates. In turn this is exacerbated when groups such as Peta use sexism and racism to sell their brand of ‘animal rights’ to the ‘mainstream’. In order to address these issues a broader critique of society is necessary so that our awareness includes an understanding of the exploitation of people, animals and the environment so that we can utilise strategies that are consistent with the radical aspects of a broader movement for liberation. So if we are going to oppose exploitation and domination of non-human animals, it makes sense to explore these ideas and how they relate to people and the environment as well.

 

Further references:

ARZone Podcast 84: Steve Best – The Politics of Total Liberation.

‘Circles of Compassion: Essays Connecting Issues of Justice’ by various authors (2014).

‘Comparing Social Justice Movements’ by Saryta Rodriguez (2015).

‘From animals to anarchism’ by Kevin Watkinson and Donal O’Driscoll (2014).

‘Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights’ by Bob Torres (2007).

‘Protest Inc.’ by Peter Dauvergne and Genevieve LeBaron (2014).

‘Thoughts on Whether Animal Welfare Campaigns – and Many Welfare Organisations – are Even Needed’ by Roger Yates (2015).

 

1 Part of what Bob Torres called the ‘animal rights industry’.

2 As in softened by animal welfare ideology. So for instance, consuming ‘humane’ meat, or choosing vegetarian food that is generally considered to be morally progressive by society when compared to consuming meat, dairy and eggs.

3 The Vegan Police are a group rarefied by new welfarists because they juxtapose an incremental approach to veganism.

 

Posted in animal liberation | Tagged , | Comments Off on The phenomenon of ‘new welfarism’.