Forget Victor Schonfeld's piece in the Guardian, forget Gary Steiner's piece in the New York Times, forget figure skaters like Johnny Weir: when Family Guy (an often remarkably reactionary show in a prime-time Sunday slot on FOX, an often remarkably reactionary network) addresses the issue of animal use, it's unquestionably a public phenomenon. Watch the video as a character on prime-time TV on one of the most popular networks discusses animal testing, veal and other issues:
http://www.eatmedaily.com/
This is not a new clip, but one that appeared some time ago. It is not even the first time that animal use has ever been discussed on Family Guy. And yet advocates continue to convince themselves that we have to lift a public veil to convince people that when they use animals for food, clothing or entertainment that they are using animals for food clothing or entertainment.
Folks, no offense (seriously), but the secret is out. And even if it were not, the problem is not just how we treat other animals, or which other animals we use, it's getting people to care, to change their behaviours, to stop using all animals, not just to improve their treatment and keep using them. That's a problem that is best solved by vegan education and I think people are fundamentally misunderstanding the amount of work that it involves. Popular culture is already outstripping the antiquated tactics and positions of the animal advocacy movement. A lot of folks have done great work challenging the received (and too often copy-and-paste repeated) dogmas of single issue campaigning in the last couple of weeks.
Regardless of organizational affiliations, of labels, of how we may feel, or of how emotionally satisfied a single issue campaign may make us, the facts are on the ground: single issue campaigns that ban specific types of treatment do not free other animals from being property; and when a figure skater like Johnny Weir's highly public response to requests to not wear fur is that it's silly because he wears leather skates, these kinds of campaigns are not educating the public, they're making animal advocates look like they are remarkably out of touch with public awareness and understanding of the issues. More important, they are laying the groundwork for agribusiness and its much more organized and much better funded lobby to poke holes in our arguments that anyone who watches television can easily understand.
I am not saying we don't have to educate. I'm saying now more than ever, it is important for us to educate the public correctly, by making it clear: animals have a right not to be used as property and that veganism (as the practice of avoiding actions that contribute to the suffering or exploitation of all animals -- and here, all means all) is the moral baseline of that view.
I am not trying to offend anyone, but if the public gets the fact that single issue advocacy is problematic and confusing, why don't we? If people will use any excuse to avoid not using other animals and going vegan, why should we invest so much time and effort to hand them a series of excuses on a platter? As Francione argues, the problem is not treatment; it's use. The issue is not asking one guy to not wear fur to one occasion or insisting that he be a level-5 vegan over night or risk excommunication forever. This is a false choice.
Education is often a long, steady and involved process that should always be conducted with humility, sincerity, in good faith and without confrontation. Further, we can educate people about specific uses within a of veganism, abolition and solidarity at the same time. I still have yet to hear or read a reasonable justification of why every campaign that advocates engage in should not have at least some mention of the moral necessity of veganism and a call to abolish the property status of all animals.
The question we must ask ourselves as a community is: why aren't we doing this? And what does it cost us in terms of our credibility, our opportunities and what does it cost nonhuman animals when we refuse to do so? Whether we want to face the facts or not, the public is already moving forward on these issues without us. The happy meat industry is already well-established. The public is ready to hear an abolitionist vegan message, and it makes me wonder why animal advocates seem so reluctant to give them one.
There are certainly a wealth of abolitionist vegan materials available to anyone who wants them. And I have included one of AE's more popular pieces in this blog. I never ask anyone to stop working; just to focus on work that will make a serious difference to other animals and that's abolitionist vegan education and solidarity (whether it's personal adoption, shelter or sanctuary work). Animals living in slavery or waiting to be enslaved need their advocates to unite behind a consistent, coherent and tactically organized program that seeks their unequivocal, unconditional and immediate emancipation. If we want unity, fine. Why not unify around a consistent, clear and meaningful praxis that will make a serious difference for other animals and one that the writers at FOX won't be able to pick apart so easily?
If you are not already vegan, you should go vegan today. If you are not abolitionist, but want to learn more about the approach, you can do so by reading my previous articles or at www.abolitionistapproach.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment