A couple of colleagues have written to me recently with questions about social events. Is it wrong or impolite for a vegan to decline a social event where nonvegan food will be served or to make arrangements to arrive after the food has been served? I wish these were uncommon questions, but a great many of the questions I field have to do with people simply navigating the social dynamics of being vegan. In this blog, I'm going to answer the question first and then discuss why this question is so common.
Before I start, I want to draw your attention to recent pieces on veganism, one by Gary Francione, one by Elizabeth Collins and one by Myl�ne Ouellet. All three provide some additional ideas on veganism and social relationships (some of which are perhaps slightly contrary to my own, but abolitionists often disagree on fine points).Like scientists, we are a community that agrees to common points and methods and processes of inquiry (sound reasoning, empirical evidence, reality, etc.) for understanding what we owe other animals (human and non), even if our results do not always match exactly.
There is nothing wrong with that. What is important is that we are self-correcting and self-critical as a community, not a religious cult based around any individual always being right all the time (unlike many other strands of the animal advocacy movement for which adherence to a cult of personality is a basic requirement). For an abolitionist, agreement on every tiny detail of everything is not required; however, (among other things) clear thinking, a willingness to accept reality, taking the Six Principles of the animal rights position seriously and a broader commitment to doing what's right for nonhuman animals are.
Let's return to the question. First, let's clarify the question, which I think is two questions. Is it ethically wrong to decline such an invite? Second, is it wrong in terms of etiquette to propose arriving after the food has been served? With the first, I think it's entirely a vegan's prerogative. It is unreasonable for anyone to expect anyone else to participate in any activity they consider to be patently unethical. If attending an event where animal foods will be served makes you ethically uncomfortable, you're usually within most normal understandings of social behaviour to decline, especially if it's a matter of entertainment (e.g., it's not like you're declining a bone marrow transplant or something).
With respect to the second, assuming that you haven't asked your hosts to go to a lot of unreasonable extra effort on your behalf (e.g., you'll only attend if your mashed potatoes are made with truffle oil), and you're not proposing something that would seriously mar the event (e.g., if you are a nudist and you wanted to attend au naturel), I still think it's entirely your prerogative to decline and that you have not done anything rude just by asking to arrive at a later time.
In terms of proposing an arrival after the start of the event, this can sometimes be tricky in terms of the etiquette. There are, of course, times when hosts have appropriate reasons to ask all guests to arrive by a particular time. If the event on a boat and it has to leave by a particular time, that's probably understandable. If it's an informal BBQ, however, where guests may drop in whenever they get off work, or whenever they can make it, the host is probably being unreasonable. On the third hand, it's the host's event to be unreasonable about.
It's not uncommon to receive less than polite replies to these kinds of inquiries. When we receive short-tempered replies about own concerns in these matters, it's usually that the host feels judged by the question. If that's the case, in my view, that's the host's issue. Having said that, we always have an opportunity to be virtuous and I think the virtuous thing to do in this case is to try understand why the host was offended, let the host know that you are still interested in attending (assuming you are), that you look forward to seeing him or her and the other guests, etc., and that you hope you can discuss whatever the problem is, that you didn't mean to cause any offense and that if the question caused any, it was was inadvertent. This is different from apologizing, but since you haven't done anything wrong, I don't think an apology is required here.
Because I believe that good deeds rarely go unpunished, vegans should probably expect any range of response: it may be a civil reply, or it may be earful about how elitist and judgemental we are just because we take nonhuman animals seriously. I can only say that in my experience, most people are very courteous about my veganism (although I live in Canada, a country renowned for its politeness). The short answer to this question is that it is not wrong and it is not rude, in and of itself, for a vegan to try to avoid social situations in which animal products will be served.
But should vegans attend these kinds of events? There is a probably a reasonable argument to be made that a vegan may decide to attend the event if there is sufficient justification for him or her to do so. However, there is also a reasonable argument to be made that a vegan may decide not to attend the event on the basis that it tends to normalize speciesism.
I am not making a proclamation or giving definitive moral guidance on this last part either way on this question. I am only pointing out that the question of whether it is appropriate for a vegan to attend this kind of event is a matter of debate in the larger community; however, because something is a matter of debate, it does not follow that there is not a right answer.
What is most important, however, is to cultivate a habit of asking moral questions, trying to answer sincerely and rationally, and then to act accordingly. So long as you act with humility, sincerity and good faith with respect to the rights of others, first and foremost, and in consideration of what is virtuous, second, you rarely act unethically or impolitely.
Having said that, we should always put ethics ahead of etiquette. Anyone who fails to understand that ethics are more important than etiquette understands neither.
If you wish to act well, first, you should consider what your duties are, and fulfill those. There is no clear duty in this case to attend such an event. If one does attend, vegans still have a very clear duty not to eat any animal foods, no matter how much Aunt Martha pushes her bacon, steak and duck casserole on you.
Second, however, once your duties are fulfilled (or in those situations where you can fulfill your duties in a number of ways, or if you do not have any specific duties), you may also consider what's the virtuous thing to do in a given situation. How can I act best beyond my literal obligations to act well? This is also an important part of abolitionist veganism. As an abolitionist vegan, it is not enough to fulfill a checklist of the absolute least we can do; we must also consider seriously the moral imperative that the rights of nonhuman animals impose upon us and act as well as we can in light of that imperative.
That is, the question is not (or is not just): what is the absolute bare minimum I can do in this situation to meet veganism as a baseline? The question is: how can I act best in solidarity with those who live and die in slavery for the pleasure of others? What is it that I owe them? This question may, at times, be difficult to answer. It may call us to do what we perceive to be seriously difficult, and indeed, what may be objectively difficult. It may vary by specific circumstance. It may often lead us into making mistakes. It may often make abolitionist veganism seem difficult to people who are not used to moral life. Finally, it may also yield more than one right answer. But we must cultivate a habit of asking the question and acting on its results.
This draws me to the second part of my blog. Why don't nonvegans take veganism more seriously? Why do we have to field this kind of question? First, speciesism is endemic and enveloping. It is very difficult for people to understand the moral necessity of veganism. But second, and more troubling, most vegans are busy telling them that veganism is not a moral imperative, but a personal choice. This is very deeply misguided. Not only does it make more work for vegans who take veganism seriously, it confuses the public about what we owe nonhuman animals.
There is no meaningful way to promote veganism, educate about veganism, etc., except to do so. "Gateway" and "indirect" approaches propose and promote a lot of confusion. I agree with Francione, Collins and Oullet that veganism is very easy most of the time, but there may also be times when it is legitimately difficult. But veganism is not a hobby. It's not something we should or others should expect us to leave in the garage when we go to Acapulco or the neighbours; it's a moral imperative. It goes where we go, and veganism should inform our decisions when it is appropriate for it to do so. Moreover, what most people perceive as being difficult often is not, and more important, the idea that we should promote what is easy rather than what is correct is misguided.
Further, the proposal of some vegans that we shouldn't take difficult moral decisions for nonhuman animals as rights-holders when we are willing to do the same for human rights-holders is very troubling (and often speciesist). Veganism is not a hobby. There may be times when it is difficult and unenjoyable, but most of the time it is easy, fulfilling, but most of all, it is the right thing to do; it is the baseline of what we owe nonhuman animals.
But it all starts with you going vegan, staying vegan and saying vegan. If you are not vegan yet, you should go vegan today. If you are already vegan, but not an abolitionist, you can learn more about the approach at Gary Francione's Web site www.abolitionistapproach.com or by reading my other articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment