However, many of their members, donors, affiliates and others, as well as many local activist groups that are not affiliated with but are concerned sincerely with how best to help animals. They may be inspired and supported by the oligarchy, but what they are not yet wedded to driving donations by any means necessary. This blog post is for them. I imagine that all over North America and EMEA there are campaigns that, although misguided, are sincere, passionate and well intentioned. By examining some of these campaigns and thinking about how we could fix them (if they can be fixed), we may yet draw the contours of effective and creative vegan outreach for an abolitionist movement, and as important, cultivate a habit of thinking critically and self-critically about how we might best help nonhumans.
This post attempts to lay out a critical method (questions that we can ask about each campaign) in order to evaluate campaigns, but also to encourage abolitionists to focus their work exclusively on abolition and to engage in a critical dialogue that acknowledges self-identification as a matter of 'good intentions' (�doo00dz, Im a abol*st 2!�) but favors effective abolitionist work on behalf of nonhuman animals as the basis for identifying other organizations as abolitionist in nature. Obviously, the most important criteria are whether or not a campaign furthers the rights of animals not to be used as property in a meaningful way (embodied in the promotion of veganism and the abolition, not the regulation, of the propertys status of nonhuman animals) even if a campaign falls short in other regards, does not articulate its values clearly enough, etc.. When I was young, I had more energy than training and mistake were made.
To that end, I'm reproducing the Six Principles of the Animal Rights Position and phrasing some questions and thoughts around them:
The Six Principles of the Animal Rights Position
The animal rights position maintains that all sentient beings, humans or nonhuman, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others.
Our recognition of the one basic right means that we must abolish, and not merely regulate, institutionalized animal exploitation�because it assumes that animals are the property of humans.
Just as we reject racism, sexism, ageism, and homophobia, we reject speciesism. The species of a sentient being is no more reason to deny the protection of this basic right than race, sex, age, or sexual orientation is a reason to deny membership in the human moral community to other humans.
We recognize that we will not abolish overnight the property status of nonhumans, but we will support only those campaigns and positions that explicitly promote the abolitionist agenda. We will not support positions that call for supposedly �improved� regulation of animal exploitation. We reject any campaign that promotes sexism, racism, homophobia or other forms of discrimination against humans.
We recognize that the most important step that any of us can take toward abolition is to adopt the vegan lifestyle and to educate others about veganism. Veganism is the principle of abolition applied to one�s personal life and the consumption of any meat, fowl, fish, or dairy product, or the wearing or use of animal products, is inconsistent with the abolitionist perspective.
We recognize the principle of nonviolence as the guiding principle of the animal rights movement.
In light of these criteria, we can aks questions that helps us to evaluate campaigns at a basic level, as well as to to provide guidance that helps us to avoid common errors. But the most important criterion for any would-be abolitionist to understand is that if a campaign is not clearly and unequivocally abolitionist, then it is not abolitionist.
Does a campaign cause us to use animals as though they were our property and not ends in themselves? This can be a very difficult and confusing matter. Certainly, we should always avoid the use live or dead nonhuman animals in campaigns meant to promote veganism or drive donations. Not only does this draw us into a rights conflict with other animals, it causes us to use them as tools, and it may confuse the public. Adoption campaigns may be different in that representing the animal in this way is part of a strategy aimed at restoring his or her personhood. But as a matter of general guidance, we shouldn't use live or dead animals as props in our political theatre. It's a moral problem and in the case of using deceased nonhuman animals, it's a �hello, crazy!� moment for the public.
But we often use images of nonhuman animals in our propaganda, and this is poses us with somewhat different moral questions. If photographs, where do these photographs come from (e.g., are they public domain)? If they are photographs, do they tell a visual story of terrible treatment of a cute animal whos suffering tugs at our heartstrings and our checkbooks (always the case in welfare propaganda) or do they depict the prospect that all animal use is wrong? How does the visuals and the messages complement one another?
There is a very fine line between representing a being as having a right not to be used as property and appropriating the suffering of nonhuman animals in order to drive donations. The regulationist oligarchy does the latter. When in doubt, the simplest way to avoid this issue is not to use photographs of animals in propaganda at all and simply go forward with a thoughtful, articulate argument based on rational principles as to why animals have a right not to be used as property and veganism is the moral baseline of taking that right seriously.Does a campaign further the view that we owe nonhumans equal consideration on a rational basis, or does it further a speciesist view? Speciesism is often misunderstood. In its simplest understanding, speciesism reflects an irrational prejudice towards any species, most often a benevolent specieism toward humn beings at the expense of other animals. Often, when a campaign is speciesist, it is indirectly so. For example, if we used nonhuman animals as resources to drive donations, that' often involves speciesism. When we engage in single issue campaigns, that also often involves speciesism since they tend to focus on the treatment of single species rather than opposing speciesism per se.
Campaigns that focus on treatment and not use also tend to be speciesist, insofar as the change they propose for nonhumans (better treatment) is not what we owe them in terms of their rights and not what we would propose for human beings in a similar position with similar interests. Speciesism is very easily misunderstood and it can be difficult to understand why a given campaign is speciesist.. The simplest way to avoid speciesism in campaigns is to stick to promoting the rights of animals generally not to be used as property, the abolition of their proeprty status and veganism as the baseline of that view.Does a campaign further irrational prejudice against other sentient beings (even human beings)? Many, many regulationist campaigns rely on sexism and racism. The problem with eliminating sexism and racism from our campaign work is that we must understand these things fairly well. As a general matter, racism and sexism are either obvious: naked activists, commodified women, appropriation of slavery and Holocaust metaphors, etc., to drive donations are obvious examples. Less obvious examples are often expressed as a desire to �go after low hanging fruit.�
What does that really mean? It means targeting a group of animal users that activists believe are more vulnerable to harassment, often violence, because they are vulnerable socially: because they're women, because their skin is brown, because people already hold irrational prejudices against them. Fur, dog fighting, seal hunting and other opportunist campaigns that target communities that are subject to social discrimination are good examples. The best way to avoid obvious and not obvious prejudice in our campaigns is ot avoid single issue campaigns, to stick to promote abolition, animal rights and veganism, and to avoid discriminating opportunistically between one kind of animal user and any other.Does a campaign propose regulation or abolition, since these are completely and mutually exclusive strategies for our social relations with nonhumans? This one should be obvious . Even if the campaign says: �We support the abolition, not the regulation, of the property status of animals,� but follows that wording up with single issue campaigns, treatment-based campaigns, sexist, racist or anti-based activism, etc., it is not abolition in nature. It is not a matter of the campaign being �mostly abolitionist with a little grey area�. It is either an abolitionist campaign or it is not. It either meets the six principles, or it does not, just as I am either 5' 10� or I am 6' 11�.
If a campaign is not abolitionist in word and deed, clearly, unequivocally, so much so that the typical member of the public can understand that what's being proposed is the abolition, not the regulation, of animal use as well as an encouragement for them to go vegan because nonhuman animals have a right not to be used as property then the campaign is not properly abolitionist.
Of course, some campaigns may be easier to fix than others in this regard, but the best way to ensure that our campaigns are abolitionist in this regard is to focus on the prospect that nonhuman animals have the right not to be used as property, that we should go vegan as a matter of taking those rights seriously, that we should educate others about veganism, and that we should work to end the property status of nonhuman animals. That's pretty straightforward, no?-
Does a campaign promote veganism, and not just an apolitical veganism for any old reason, but a veganism that is clearly a consequences of taking a strong animal rights position? A plant-based died is often promoted for reasons of human health, the environment, to reduce animal suffering, etc. None of these provided sustainable rational arguments for veganism. At bottom, they are poorly reasoned, and so, ineffective at promoting life-long veganism based on an understanding of what we owe nonhuman animals. Ethical reasons are the only sustainable basis for promoting veganism, and they are the only properly morally defensible basis for promoting it.
As one of my colleagues says, focusing feminist outreach on an argument that rapists should we condoms to avoid STDs for their own health would be problematic. As another has put it, arguing that the Holocaust was morally problematic because it was environmentally unfriendly would also be problematic from a human rights perspective. "Vegan" outreach that focuses on human health or environmentalism to the exclusion of of moral arguments that address what we owe nonhuman animals misses entirely what is important about veganism: it proposes to use a clear set of behaviours (and rules to understand behaviour) that helps avoid insofar as its pratical and possible our contribution to nonhuman animals harm, suffering or exploitation. Although it is fine to point out that humans do not need animal foods or animal labor for health or environmental reasons, and there are at least some benefits to some plant-based diets for both human health and the environment, ethical arguments are the most appropriate to vegan outreach.
- Finally, does a campaign promote violence, harassment and other activites that would draw us into rights conflicts or cause us to promote the rights of some at the expense of others? Definitions of violence are like sphincters. Everyone has one and the least interesting people keep them perpetually clenched. Most of them are conceived to suit the emotional needs and moral inclinations of the holder. There are moral arguments against violence, and there are moral arguments to be made in favor of justified, minimal and nonviolent force. But as a practical matter, abolitionists (insofar as their appoint themselves public representatives of the movement) should focus their efforts on maximal work on behalf of nonhuman animals. That means nonviolence as a guiding principle.
With that in mind, there are other moral framworks to justify veganism, but for abolitionists, there is only one: the rights of nonhuman animals not to be used as property. It is important for abolitionist activists to promote the rights of nonhuman animals not to be used as property and veganism as the lived daily practice of taking that view seriously. Many advocates are encouraged not to make the moral case as to why someone should be vegan. Understandably, the public takes away the view that veganism is a lifestyle choice that doesn't involve moral considerations. It's not. Veganism is a moral imperative and a duty that we owe nonhuman animals in light of their rights not to be used as property. This is an error that is easy to avoid. Just promote veganism on the basis that animals have a right not to be used as property.
Speaking personally for a moment, the efforts to justify violence and harassment by advocates very often resemble the arguments put forward to justify other kinds of animal use. Often very poorly reasoned, they assume by default that violence is normatively acceptable, and that other abolitionists should have to put forward convincing arguments that violence should be off the table. In their most misguided expression, they are sometimes phrased as "we have to let the oppressor know that we can be violent, too." This is to misapprehend veganism, nonhuman animal rights, abolition, and all that these things stand for.
Indeed, it is to misunderstand the very principle of justice. The use of force may be justified from a rights-based framework, but violence (as an unjustified vigilantism) almost always reflects a kind of utilitarian, patriarchal thuggery. To those who would be just and virtuous (and we all should be), means and ends are important. Violence always conserves, or more often, steals power from others, exercises that power arbitrarily, refuses to allow it to circulate freely and that draws us to using others as means to our ends, as instruments, as tools, as property; violence does its best to hide the underlying equality of all animals and our duty to act accordingly in all of our social relations. Violence and justice are opposites.
In short, just as it misguided to demand arguments from another vegan as to why I shouldn't ride horses, it is misguided to demand arguments from another abolitionist vegan as to why I shouldn't engage in violence. Like all animal use, the use of any sort of force against a human being to achieve the political ends of the movement must be justified for it even to be considered from a moral perspective. Once the moral questions have been satisfied, if they can be satisfied, it still does not address the practical problems that violence poses for a movement predicated on promoting nonviolence.
That doesn't mean abolitionists should never use nonviolent force to prevent immanent harm to nonhuman animals. If someone is beating a dog in front of you, although you have no duty to interfere, if you do try to restrain the other person using the least possible force, this is probably justifiable. However, it does mean that a directionless carnival of whateverism, glued locks, spray-painted slogans, smash windows, idiotic epithets and illegal activities to drive donations are the hallmark of militant welfarist/regulationist/protectionist activism, and we would do well to avoid repeating it.
These are some baseline questions and there would obviously be related questions under each. But this is one way we begin to ask objective questions about all campaigns, including our own. As abolitionists, we should focus on creating our own campaigns (and our own shelters), but when it comes to animal adoption, there are times when creating our own shelters locally just isn't feasible. It doesn't follow from that that abolitionists should engage in campaigns that are welfarist, sexist, etc. What it means is that insofar as they are able, they should continue to do the very important work of helping to restore the personhood of nonhuman animals with shelter work while avoiding insofar as possible the compromises attending to the campaigns of the broader organization.
But as abolitionists, the vast majority of our animal advocacy involves primarily volunteer campaigns, handing out pamphlets, leaflets, tabling, given presentations, etc. We should not confuse Francione's encouragement to creative, nonviolent vegan outreach with an encouragement to be involved in undisciplined, violent or veg*n outreach even some of the time. After all, what's the meaningful difference between any other new welfarist organization and an organization that claims to be abolitionist but engages in not just one but all of the following?
Uses animals as resources in order to drive donations nominally 'to help animals' but primarily to sustain its own bureaucracy in contravention of the first principle;
Focuses its rhetorical claims on treatment as the moral problem, not use, or its work on treatment not use, or both, in contraventino of the second principle;
Engages in sexist campaigning (naked activism) in contravention of the third principle;
Engages in single-issue, treatment-focussed campaigns (e.g., fur protests and anti-vivisection work) in contravention of the fourth principle;
Engages in adventurist or violent action in contravention of the sixth principle;
Even if they get the fifth principle mostly correct, what about the other five out of six?
If a nominally 'abolitionist' organization promotes abolition but engages in regulationist activism or a mix of regulationist activism and vegan outreach, there is no substantial difference between this organizational and any other new welfarist organization. This is not to say that there is no difference at all, but when the seemingly endless list of regulationist groups that identify as �abolitionist�, as a community, abolitionists are critical (and we should be) of the appropriation of the term. But we are often less critical when someone we like, who we believe is sincerely trying, or who we deem to be 'close enough' engages in regulationist activism.
That doesn't mean we should nitpick tiny details about word choices, where the logo should go and that kind of thing. Nor does it mean we should spend all day arguing with the ineducable. Nor is criticism a kind of excommunication. Abolitionist criticism should reflect a meaningful dialogue that corrects susbstantial misunderstandings of what we owe nonhuman animals with those who are open to that correction, who take the rights of nonhumans seriously and are simply misguided or confused about how best to do that, regardless of how they self-identify. A refusal to critically engage other abolitionists because they are "abolitionists" poses us with the same moral issue that a refusal to critically engage welfarist activity does, but leaving aside moral issues for a moment, this is a practical mistake for two reasons.
First, I think this is a non-maximal use of criticism. The best use of criticism is to correct those who are most amenable to correction and whose work is already closest to being properly abolitionist. What should separate us from regulationist criticism is a cultish refusal to engage in an open and critical dialogue about our work.
Second, if abolitionists cannot tell the difference between an abolitionist campaign and a new welfarist campaign, it poses a serious problem to our praxis. So long as we fail to differentiate the abolitionist position from being more than "not purely regulationism" and properly train activists to engage in abolitionist work, there will never be an abolitionist movement.
Of course, our work may meaningfully limit how we can aggressively we can promote abolition around the water cooler, but what we should do with our free time is cut and dried. We should take the rights of nonhuman animals not to be used as property seriously, and focus our efforts maximally on educating people about those rights, the moral necessity of veganism as the baseline of taking those rights seriously, and the moral and practical necessity of ending the property status of nonhuman animals as the first milestone in our struggle on behalf of nonhuman animals.
Most of all, we should only engage in campaigns that meet these criteria. If we're not sure whether a campaign meets these criteria or why these criteria are important, the best thing we can do is act by educating ourselves further about what abolition is, what it entails and how it helps us to help life nonhuman animals out of their slavery.
No comments:
Post a Comment