Tuesday 31 March 2020

Should animal rights activists focus on “changing the system” or on changing individuals? I argue that this is a false choice

Recently I’ve seen certain vegan animal rights activists speak rather disparagingly about vegan advocacy efforts. These activists claim that educating individuals to go vegan (which they sometimes describe as “vegan consumerism”) will not lead to animal liberation. Instead, they argue that vegans should stop promoting veganism and instead participate in direct action that focuses on “changing the system” rather than changing individuals.

But is it really true that vegan education won’t lead to the abolition of animal exploitation? I argue that such a claim creates a misleading false choice.


I don’t believe that the promotion of plant-based products and consumerism will lead to the abolition of animal exploitation, but when we educate the public about why they should become ethical vegans, we are not only changing the consumer habits of individuals. In fact, we are changing the system.


Veganism isn’t only about the products you buy, and it isn’t a diet. Rather, it’s an ethical philosophy that opposes all animal exploitation. By educating the public to go vegan for animal rights, we are working to change the way that members of the public think about non-human animals. I would argue that changing public opinion by educating people to become anti-speciesist vegans is the only way we can achieve lasting change towards the abolition of animal exploitation.


As more and more people go vegan, fewer animals will be exploited, and this isn’t only a matter of “supply and demand”. If we can educate a certain percentage of the population (I’m not going to guess the exact number) to become vegans who are against speciesism, we will see organizations and institutions of all kinds—schools, workplaces, governments, businesses, and charities—adopt anti-speciesist policies, as many of the people involved in these institutions will be vegans themselves. And as more and more people go vegan, the practice of exploiting animals will become taboo and will be frowned upon. This will create a social environment in which it will actually be difficult to not be vegan.


In my view, the question of whether animal rights activists should focus on changing the system or changing individuals is a false choice. By changing individuals, we are changing the system. After all, society is made up of individuals!


It seems to me that the claims of these direct-action activists who oppose vegan advocacy (many of whom are members of the group Direct Action Everywhere, or DxE) are rather similar to the claims made by the reduceatarian, plant-based diet, and animal welfare movements. “Most people think veganism is too extreme”, the reduceatarian advocates say, “so let’s just ask people to reduce their consumption of animals instead.” Plant-based diet advocates say, “Nobody cares about animals, so let’s get people to go plant-based for their health instead.” The welfarists say, “We’re not going to achieve a vegan world overnight, so let’s try to make things a little less horrible for the animals who are being exploited.” However, all of these strategies are not only morally problematic, but they have been shown to fail. Now the DxE activists are saying, “Everybody hates vegans, so let’s stop talking about veganism and instead just ask people to march with us in the streets.” Hmmm…


My words may seem harsh, but animal rights is such an important cause that I cannot afford to stay silent when I see my fellow activists turn towards strategies that water down and ignore the abolitionist vegan message.


This is not a criticism of direct action tactics. However, I genuinely believe that if we are going to achieve the abolition of animal exploitation, we MUST focus on vegan anti-speciesist education. This is the most effective way we can truly change the system.

13 comments:

  1. Hello! Yes, I am familiar with this dilemma. It doesn't have to be a dilemma though. Here is DxE's stance.

    What is Veganism?
    From DxE’s perspective, veganism is the way of living that seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—any products or services derived from the exploitation of nonhuman animals. This includes any products made from the bodies or secretions of animals, as well as those developed using animal testing.
    What is DxE's view of veganism?
    DxE fights against speciesism in society. Speciesism is the set of oppressive ideologies that perpetuates this violent exploitation of nonhuman animals. DxE regards living vegan as one crucial expression of anti-speciesist philosophy, but not the only one. To truly oppose speciesism, we must take comprehensive direct action to change the world for all animals, and living vegan is just part of this.
    *The work of Gary Francione distinguishes between "lifestyle veganism," framed as a "personal choice" to not use animals, and "abolitionist veganism" defined as "the animal rights based opposition to all animal use by humans," which maintains that all sentient beings share a basic right not to be treated as the property of others.
    HOW DOES DxE GO BEYOND VEGANISM?
    A stronger framing for animal rights
    Speaking about speciesism, rather than veganism alone, frames the argument in animals’ favor. Veganism is commonly seen as a lifestyle choice, focused on our individual consumer behavior. DxE focuses on animals, their lives, and our collective liberation as a social justice issue.
    Anti-speciesism addresses more than veganism can
    Common formulations of veganism only ask us to reject the most direct products of animal exploitation. This often ignores animals killed in farming processes and urban development, those trapped in zoos and aquariums, and other victims. Anti-speciesism addresses all cases of unnecessary and avoidable violence against animals.
    Building a movement will take more than just veganism
    Movement building is a key ingredient in creating long-term systemic change. A focus on promoting veganism only leads to isolated and powerless vegans. We seek to create more than this: a global network of intimately connected activists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. The origin of this post is Lynda Wise.

      Delete
  2. http://www.images.pythagoreancrank.com/boycott_veganism.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  3. The profound commitment of Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) animal liberation activists indicates they too “know where they are going” (Le Guin, 1973, p. 260). A radical paper titled “Boycott Veganism,” (n.d.) by DxE cofounder, Wayne Hsiung throws down the gauntlet saying “animal rights only begins with your diet” (p. 2), that veganism neither saves lives or reduces suffering, but sets up the debate between human choices and interests rather than animal rights and brutality (p. 4). It conspicuously leaves out equality and justice while focusing on diet and compassion alone for the animals (p. 5). In everyday dialogue, the clear and compelling message against inequality and injustice is lost in the fog of “because I’m Vegan” as opposed to “because killing innocents is wrong” (Hsiung, n.d., p. 4). Hsiung points out startlingly that “species oppression … quietly saturates every industry, institution, and cultural norm in our society” (p. 2). As Joy (2019) explains:
    The ideology of speciesism, that places animals on a hierarchy of moral worth, with humans at the top – is in fact an expression of human supremacy, an attitude that when philosophically deconstructed, is like other forms of supremacy and proves to be morally indefensible. …Nonhuman beings as individuals as well as the ecosystems that comprise them possess moral worth and are deserving of moral consideration of their interests. (p.15)
    Hsiung (n.d.) fittingly extrapolates “it is not primarily our diets that have been warped by our speciesist culture, but our social and political beliefs” and further challenges us “to stand up for animals in the totality of our social and political lives” (p. 9).

    ReplyDelete
  4. I will try and share my essay from last semester one screen at a time, okay? It is about this very subject.

    The Power of a Movement to Create Change
    “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” (1973), by Ursula K. Le Guin portrays utilitarian utopian life utterly dependent upon the perpetual, powerless suffering of a child confined in a filthy basement. Its counterpart is our world which turns on the systematic slaughter of tens of billions of perceptive, feeling nonhuman beings. The 2013 Ahimsa (Nonviolence) award recipient, Melanie Joy reports: “In just one week, more farmed animals are killed than the total number of people killed in all wars throughout human history” (2018, p. 79). Le Guin’s title prompts pondering alternatives that don’t exploit the powerless. The ones who walk away from Omelas cannot accept the child’s never-ending suffering as the foundational basis of their civilization. Similarly, modern day vegans walk away from the mainstream who exploits animals for financial gain (through the food, clothing, research, sports and entertainment industries) as they cannot accept the holocaust-exceeding proportions of animal suffering. However, according to Joy’s definition of power, walking away is equivalent to a demonstration of powerlessness: “Power is the capacity or ability to influence others, oneself, or events to bring about a desired outcome” (2019, p. 176). Walking away does not wipe out inequality, injustice and cruelty. All earthlings are equally devastated by rapid global warming, habitat loss and species extinction – all of which are linked to animal exploitation. Nevertheless our secular powers refuse to respond with enough urgency or substantive change. Political power has deep social roots. Gene Sharp’s scholarly analysis of power, in The Politics of Nonviolent Action (1973) has informed many successful nonviolent struggles for freedom, democracy and the reduction of political violence around the world. Organized protest, noncooperation, and intervention have effectively aided the shift of power (Sharp, 2013, p. 18). This is how it becomes possible to move closer to or even exceed Le Guin’s vision where the experiences of a society can flow from its higher ideals.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Screen 2, essay continued...

    Legitimate happiness cannot accommodate any degree of injustice – if it does, then it becomes illegitimate happiness. In her introduction, Le Guin quotes William James, author of The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life (1891), telling us in a roundabout way that it would be a hideous thing to enjoy happiness that is deliberately accepted as the result of an unjust bargain – were they for instance, hypothetically offered “a world in which ... utopias should all be outdone, and millions kept permanently happy on the one simple condition that a certain lost soul on the far-off edge of things should lead a life of lonely torment” (1973, p. 254). She calls James naive for assuming readers are as decent as he is yet praises him for being a genuinely radical thinker and she feels exhilarated at the thought that ideals could be the cause of future experience (p. 254). Le Guin is subtly stating that radical thinking is what we need to create a world that adheres to high ideals. Similarly, Joy reveals we have “all been deeply conditioned by the invisible system of powerarchy to believe in a hierarchy of moral worth – to view some individuals and groups as either more or less worthy of moral consideration – and to treat them accordingly” (2019, book jacket). It is this belief that underlies our societal structure and keeps unjust power dynamics in place. Joy (2019) further points to the dangers of not taking time to “understand the broader system, or metasystem, that lies beneath and beyond specific forms of oppression, we risk trading one form of oppression for another” or we shapeshift oppression (p. 10). The mindset of oppression that permits genocides around the world also produces and maintains a culture of classist exploitation at home and enables the commodification of sentient nonhuman animals (Joy, 2019, pp. 12-13). We must, therefore, look at the root causes of oppression, not just at its outward manifestations in order to eradicate it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Screen 3, essay continued...

    John S. Mill defined happiness as pleasure in the absence of pain and delineated between higher (intellect-based) pleasures that yielded far greater happiness than the lower (sense-based) pleasures (Austin, 2015, para 2). Omelas’ utilitarian utopia violates the rights of one individual for the benefit of the majority which illustrates the fatal flaw of utilitarianism: the perpetration of injustice. In fact, Le Guin says if the people of Omelas were “to exchange all the goodness and grace of every life in Omelas for that single, small improvement: to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of the happiness of one: that would be to let guilt [in]” (p. 258). This complex society has knowingly decided to abuse that single child without any guilt or remorse. The net gain of happiness among the people is considered more valuable than violating the rights of the innocent (Austin, 2015, para 5). Our everyday political and moral discourse and actions are saturated by utilitarian moral reasoning. A prime example of this is hidden inside the dairy industry. The routine separation of mother and calf was so described by activist Gary Yourofsky (1:07:47-1:08:00):
    the worst scream I’ve ever heard – and I’ve heard them all firsthand – was of a mother cow on a dairy farm. She screams and bellows her lungs out day after day for her stolen baby to be given back to her. (Georgia Tech, 2010)
    This ruthless and repetitive cycle of forced impregnation, heinous stealing and abuse of newborn calves with no regard for the grief-stricken mothers is deemed necessary by the dominant powerarchy in our society. Bovine abuse is literally institutionalized by us for the purpose of profitable commodification of their flesh and fluids.
    Milk yield per cow has more than doubled in the previous 40 years and many cows now produce more than 20,000 kg of milk per lactation. The increase in production should be viewed with concern because: i) the increase in milk yield has been accompanied by declining fertility, increasing leg and metabolic problems and declining longevity; ii) there are unfavourable genetic correlations between milk yield and fertility, mastitis and other production diseases, indicating that deterioration in fertility and health is largely a consequence of selection for increased milk yield; and iii) high disease incidence, reduced fertility, decreased longevity and modification of normal behaviour are indicative of substantial decline in cow welfare. (Oltenacu & Broom, 2010)
    Greed for profit and commerce without conscience are rampant in the dairy industry which illustrates the fundamental flaw of utilitarianism: there are some things that ought never to be done on the grounds of ethics, even if we perceive their consequences as positive. Our choices and judgments say something about us too. Ashley Montagu noted:
    The indifference, callousness and contempt that so many people exhibit toward animals is evil first because it results in great suffering in animals, and second because it results in an incalculably great impoverishment of the human spirit. All education should be directed toward the refinement of the individual's sensibilities in relation not only to one's fellow humans everywhere, but to all things whatsoever. (Good Reads, Ashley Montagu quotes)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Screen 4, Essay continued...

    An unequivocal primary commitment to the value of justice for all would hold us to a higher standard demanding that we stretch human ingenuity much farther than we presently do.

    Le Guin delicately schools us on the worthwhile life – it may not be brimming with happiness, but on the path to justice, there is resplendence in sacrifice and the fearless exploration of what is unknown. Le Guin says of the ones who leave Omelas, that “they walk ahead into the darkness” without returning and they go towards a place even less imaginable than their known “utopian” state (1973, p. 260). That place, she says, is impossible to describe, and is hardly credible. “But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas” (1973, p. 260). Le Guin is saying that although alternatives to the known unjust utilitarian utopian system may at first appear unimaginable, indescribable, and unbelievable, we must forge ahead. She notes the ones who leave Omelas have a knowledge and understanding which gives them definite purpose and direction. The profound commitment of Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) animal liberation activists indicates they too “know where they are going” (Le Guin, 1973, p. 260). A radical paper titled “Boycott Veganism,” (n.d.) by DxE cofounder, Wayne Hsiung throws down the gauntlet saying “animal rights only begins with your diet” (p. 2), that veganism neither saves lives or reduces suffering, but sets up the debate between human choices and interests rather than animal rights and brutality (p. 4). It conspicuously leaves out equality and justice while focusing on diet and compassion alone for the animals (p. 5). In everyday dialogue, the clear and compelling message against inequality and injustice is lost in the fog of “because I’m Vegan” as opposed to “because killing innocents is wrong” (Hsiung, n.d., p. 4). Hsiung points out startlingly that “species oppression … quietly saturates every industry, institution, and cultural norm in our society” (p. 2). As Joy (2019) explains:
    The ideology of speciesism, that places animals on a hierarchy of moral worth, with humans at the top – is in fact an expression of human supremacy, an attitude that when philosophically deconstructed, is like other forms of supremacy and proves to be morally indefensible. …Nonhuman beings as individuals as well as the ecosystems that comprise them possess moral worth and are deserving of moral consideration of their interests. (p.15)
    Hsiung (n.d.) fittingly extrapolates “it is not primarily our diets that have been warped by our speciesist culture, but our social and political beliefs” and further challenges us “to stand up for animals in the totality of our social and political lives” (p. 9).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Screen 5, essay concluded...

    A well-recognized sixteen-year-old environmental activist, Greta Thunberg, recently argued: “We are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction. And the extinction rate is up to 10,000 times faster than what is considered normal, with up to 200 species becoming extinct every single day” (Vegan 2019, 2019). Roger Hallam (vegan for more than 30 years), who in 2017 began a PhD in direct action campaigning, has founded Extinction Rebellion (XR) and is using that movement globally to bring governments to a standstill in a bid to address climate change and its connected issues like animal agriculture (Vegan 2019, 2019). DxE’s achievements in 2019 included over 600 people converging at a massive duck farm where 32 ducklings were rescued, continuing their “Right to Rescue” campaign. There was also a coordinated, global lockdown for animal rights from Toronto to Mexico City, Paris to Seoul where activists locked down at farms, slaughterhouses, and government buildings demanding protection for animals under the law and finally, a major legislative victory was won with the first fur ban statewide in California, USA. In 2020, DxE cofounders Wayne Hsiung and Priya Sawhney are risking decades in prison but Hsiung is clear that “the fight against animal agriculture is the fight against misinformation” (Greenberg, 2019). DxE intends to turn the adversity of being in court into an opportunity to force jurors to wear virtual reality headsets that will immerse them in the suffering of animals bound for slaughter (Greenberg, 2019).
    “Nonviolent actions… are… dozens of specific methods of protest, noncooperation, and intervention, in all of which the resisters conduct the conflict by doing or refusing to do certain things without using physical violence” (Sharp, 2013, p. 18). Nonviolent action is not passive nor is it inaction. It is a power that is applied non-violently to oppose political power in the face of inequality and injustice. Movements like XR and DxE purposefully achieve awareness, acceptance and action from everyday people. Movement actors who create political change actually surpass Le Guin’s vision because not only do they walk away from the spoils of injustice but they go one step further: they fight to harness the legislative, executive and judicial branches of power in governments to extinguish the agony of inequality, injustice and cruelty.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here are my References, fyi.

    References
    Austin, M.W. (2015, June 8). What’s wrong with utilitarianism? Psychology Today. Retrieved from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-everyone/201506/whats-wrong-utilitarianism
    Georgia Institute of Technology. (2010, July 8). Best speech you will ever hear [Video file]. Retrieved from: https://youtu.be/es6U00LMmC4
    Greenberg, A. (2019). Meet the activists risking prison to film virtual reality in factory farms. Wired. Retrieved from: https://www.wired.com/story/direct-action-everywhere-virtual-reality-exposing-factory-farms/?fbclid=IwAR3Kvtt9Vz4MVUb1a1aYAhx3pQISfRx7EJ4p31nuFBlp7GbQTZ-Q7el3ZvQ&mbid=social_facebook&utm_brand=wired&utm_medium=social&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=facebook
    Hsiung, W. (n.d.). Boycott veganism. Retrieved from: http://www.images.pythagoreancrank.com/boycott_veganism.pdf
    Joy, M. (2018). Beyond beliefs: a guide to improving relationships and communication for vegans, vegetarians, and meat eaters. Brooklyn, NY: Lantern Books.
    Joy, M. (2019). Powerarchy: understanding the psychology of oppression for social transformation (1st ed.). Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
    Le Guin, U. (1973). The ones who walk away from Omelas. The Wind's Twelve Quarters (1st ed.). 1975. New York, NY: Harper & Row. pp. 254-262.
    Montagu, A. (n.d.). Retrieved from: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6555206-the-indifference-callousness-and-contempt-that-so-many-people-exhibit
    Oltenacu, P. & Broom. M. (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228675305_The_impact_of_genetic_selection_for_increased_milk_yield_on_the_welfare_of_dairy_cows
    Sharp, G. (2013). How nonviolent struggle works. Boston, MA: Albert Einstein Institution.
    Vegan 2019 - The Film. (2019, December 1). Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AYOViszK_A

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm a little late reading this, got behind!
    Hmmm, all very interesting, but a somewhat baffling dispute. Everything you say in this blog makes perfect sense to me. As a person who has become more and more aware of animal rights (mainly because of this blog and all the interviews), I see ethical veganism as a logical outcome of being concerned about all living creatures. Veganism is CERTAINLY not the whole picture, and I have not met any ethical vegans who think that it is....really, none. It surprises me that some organizations think that vegans are only thinking about what they eat! Goodness, that is really not giving people enough credit, I think. Veganism usually leads to learning about all the other forms of animal exploitation... of course it does, how could it not? Yes there are some people who become vegan only for health reasons, but even then, at least those vegans are still not eating animals and animal products, and they may become more aware of the ethical side of things. In fact two of my friends did start out being vegan for their health, and went on from there to learn about animal rights. Maybe I'm old-school, having lived through some of the work done by womens' rights activists, but when I see change happening and people evolving and learning (including myself) I see that as a wonderful thing, and something to encourage mightily! Honestly, I've now read a lot of the anti-vegan information, and it pretty much astounds me. I think that anyone who is an ethical vegan IS doing a type of direct action... they are rejecting the system whereby animals are used for food. How is that not a protest? "Put your money where your mouth is", and all that. As more and more people stop exploiting animals for food, and for everything else, the movement gains momentum and becomes more powerful. We have seen that in other areas as well, of course.
    As I said, all very interesting AND very thought provoking...thank you! Wow!!

    ReplyDelete