Vegan outreach: how not to do it

There are mixed opinions on how best to conduct vegan outreach: are shocking images of animal use helpful to represent the violence animals endure, or are they just a weird torture porn that ingratiates advocates but turns off viewers? Should advocates participate in more online or offline dialogue? Are stunts an effective way to draw public attention? Should advocates lead with a rights argument and then explain veganism as the practice or the other way around?

I don't answer these questions in this particular blog, although I have views on each. In one of my earlier (now almost retro) podcasts, I discuss how to answer a question about veganism (for those who want to think about that particular question). In this blog, I give some ideas on how not to conduct outreach, since often it's the case that advocates engage unknowingly and unintentionally in actions that will make their work less effective.

First, don't confuse your audience. If you want someone to take a particular change, you have to express what change they should take in a clear and compelling way. Be succinct and be clear. Happy meat, humane treatment, single issue campaigns, human rights issues, etc., create a kind of quagmire for most people, the overwhelming majority of whom are already subjective about their relationship to nonhuman animals. If your goal is to promote veganism (and it should be), do that. Do it again, and do it a third time for good measure.

Second, don't engage in a contrived dialogue; when you talk to people, you really have to talk with them. Having watched a number of vegan advocates interact with the rest of the world over the years, many of them sound like they're reading from a telemarketing script. This is often meant to be highly sincere, but to the public, it just seems creepy. And it seems creepy whether you are really good at reading the telemarketing script or really awkward. Instead, have a sincere dialogue with people. Engage them in ways that are meaningful to them. Have a dialogue with them, by, you know, having an actual dialogue with them. Other people are not instruments of your ideology. Most people know a sales pitch when they hear one and will typically respond to it with hostility. If they're not interested in veganism, engage someone who is. Most people don't want to hear a sales pitch full of poorly staged questions meant to lead them to specific answers. Leave that for your handout.

Third, don't lose your temper. This is especially the case for online education. Of course, vegans are often insulted or ridiculed both online and in real life, but most of the public doesn't care strongly either way. In fact, what you're most likely to hear in urban areas is "I respect vegans� choices, but I could never go vegan,� and then some mild taunting like �I could never give up bacon...� Your role as an advocate is to keep your eyes on the prize and not to get snarky. Sarcasm and passive aggressive remarks don't reflect well on advocacy with the public. It's also worth keeping in mind that many people don't necessarily realize that they are insulting you (and if they are just disagreeing with you, they are not insulting you). That doesn't mean you shouldn't defend yourself, and that brings us to "fourth."

Fourth, be prepared to stick up for your views and for nonhuman animals (and here I mean by promoting the morally imperative nature of veganism). If you don't take your views credibly and sincerely, most people will not know what to think about your views. You shouldn't lose your temper, but that doesn't mean you should act like a doormat (especially, as is too often the case, other advocates attack you for promoting veganism consistently). Too many advocates confuse the public by promoting humane treatment as an acceptable middle ground, suggesting that some animal products are fine, or otherwise being apologetic for taking animals seriously. This is morally and practically problematic; it also lays further ground work for accusations of elitism (since if you can go vegan, what makes you think they can't or won't?). It also makes it that much more difficult for other vegans who don't want to have to be apologetic about their veganism. And it's bad for nonhuman animals if advocates send confusing messages to the public (c.f., first above) and worse if the message that gets through is �it's okay to use nonhuman animals.�

Fifth, don't give up (and don't give up before you get started). Often the task of building vegan societies seems insurmountable. It is, if you set yourself the goal of educating 7 billion people about veganism. If you manage to educate a few people a year, that's a few more people who (hopefully) will educate a few more people and so on. It takes time and discipline to educate other people. It's a learned habit. No one is a natural. You�ll learn to answer questions, anticipate responses, and be able to inform people. All of this comes with practice. The most important thing you can do is practice.

What should you do?
I am still working my way out of the paper bag, but some thoughts on what you should do.

Practice your courage; practice your discussions with a friend. Get accustomed to answering questions and rationally reconstructing the question that someone is asking you (so that you can tell them what they want to know � not all questions are clear, and sometimes, people really want to know something other than what they are asking). Keep in mind that, if you are the average vegan animal advocate, it probably took you a long time and several explanations and lots of cupcakes to go vegan. Learn how to address "gotcha" questions and other things that are meant to draw you away from talking about nonhuman animals. Soon, you won't have to hold your breath, making fists in your pockets, as you wait for someone to reject you. Indeed, they may not reject you. You also have to prepare for that.

Practice your discipline; learn to return to your topic: nonhuman animals. Organic conversations are perfectly fine, but if you're in an antagonistic discussion, it's likely that it's someone's intention to draw you off-topic (e.g., "OMG, HITLER WAS A VEGETARIAN!!!"). Don't spend time in a nuanced historical debate talking about whether Hitler was a vegetarian. Get the conversation back to vegansim: (e.g., "I think there's historical debate about that, but I don't promote vegetarianism; I promote veganism. What do you think about that?").

Practice your good judgment; learn more about veganism, abolitionist thought and nonhuman animals, and then learn more about the areas of knowledge that are close to these. For example, you'll undoubtedly (at some point) get questions like: "Should I keep my cat indoors??" or "Is abortion vegan?" These will sound like gotcha questions. They're not. People often sincerely want to know, and often they want to know because they're not really sure themselves. If you understand sentience, and what we owe other beings in light of abolitionist thought, these questions are not too difficult. If you understand some basics about animal ethology and feminist thought, you can give an even rounder answer. That doesn't mean you need to read the Library of Congress before you hand out a Go Vegan pamphlet. It only means that the more informed you are, the more prepared you'll be to answer questions.

Last, but not least, read this important FAQ: http://abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/ You can even print it out, and carry it with you for people who have a lot of questions.

But don't take my word for it -- try it for yourself!  And remember, the most important thing anyone can do if you are concerned about nonhuman animals is to go vegan. If you're already vegan, and want to learn more about how abolition proposes to abolish rather than regulate animal use, you can do so at abolitionistapproach.com.

Nonviolence is just the "L" in love

Beyond silly, other-worldly hypotheticals, it seems strange to me when advocates (some vegan) claim that the use of animals for human ends does not harm those who are used (not only do I believe it harms those who are used, I believe it also harms those who do the using). What these kinds of claims (that we can use animals as our resources without harming them) seem to suggest is that it may be harmful to nonhumans, at least in some instances, if we don't use them as our resources for our own ends. This sounds even stranger to my ear.

If it is right to concern ourselves with the well-being of nonhuman animals (and it is), then it is right to take the most basic step in their interests: a duty of nonviolence (and that starts with veganism); taking that interest seriously continues with promoting and working toward the abolition of their status as our property clearly and unequivocally; it flowers in a relationship of solidarity with and beneficence toward other sentient beings on a social scale. And when we think carefully about this, if we consider nonhumans as moral persons, rather than as things we shouldn't use, then we find we have and should have a rich social relationship to them.

Lots of people have been asking for a plan for social transformation in the last couple of months.  Fair enough, here's my proposal. My sense is that our relationship with other animals (human and non) should reflect a reversal and a rupture with the status quo. For every factory and family farm, we should imagine and work to create in its place a rescue and adoption center and (properly) protected habitats.

For every military, for every corporation, we should imagine and work to create a university populated by students who want to understand other animals (human and non) so that they can act well toward others and social organizations directed toward the promotion of nonviolence and beneficence toward all at every turn at a systemic and structural level.

All social transformations begin in the present moment when someone chooses right over wrong. You can get from where we stand today to the result above through nonviolent, creative education (and here I mean education, not just raising awareness), by 1) conducting outreach with the public, 2) effectively training advocates, 3) creating alternative economic structures (e.g., buying co-ops, co-op groceries, etc.) and 4) by establishing shelters and rescues that promote veganism, abolition and the moral personhood of nonhuman animals.

If you're not vegan yet, today is an absolutely wonderful day to start. If you're already vegan, try to talk to someone about veganism and the importance of not harming other animals.  Or, rescue someone from a shelter.  Or, teach someone how to cook a plant-only feast and why veganism is important to you. Or look into creating a buying co-op.  Or, write a play about veganism. Or hand out leaflets about veganism and abolition.  Or educate yourself about the abolitionist approach to animal rights. Be brave. Be creative.  Think carefully.  Act well.

Nonviolence is just the "L" in love. Today is the best day in history for all advocates to start writing the whole word by promoting veganism, abolition and animal solidarity. The problem is not the lack of a plan; it's fear that we will be unsuccessful, worry about what other people are doing, and an uncertainty about what to do.  We're all scared of failure, but nonhuman animals require our courage. It is up to each of us to be the organization of change.

To Dr. Roger Yates, Doctor of Philosophy

Dear Roger,

I have decided to withdraw my challenge to debate you, as well as the post that proposed it.  I hope at some point you'll change your mind about a handful of things I consider to be important to taking a strong, uncluttered abolitionist position. Nevertheless, I wanted to wish you all the best and to apologize for what were, I gather, some comments that were deeply hurtful to you personally in the original challenge. I'll do my best to treat you (among other advocates), more charitably in the future.

Always my best,
Vincent

Animal advocacy and the principle of charity

Going forward, I have decided to use strictly the principle of charity (for at least one year) in my dealings with other animals advocates where it is practicable to do so (except where abiding by the principle of charity would draw me into greater harms, issues of sincerity or other misguided positions with respect to other advocates). 

Of course, charity is not a panacea to fix the broader problems in the advocacy community.  It cannot paper over substantive ideological differences nor will it solve some of the more endemic social problems to the movement. Nor will it inure me from the less than charitable attacks directed toward Gary L. Francione or toward other abolitionist colleagues. Indeed, it is impossible to read some of the most recent and historical attacks charitably.

But neither will charitable reading of substantive and sincere discussion inhibit my criticism (which will remain continuous, involved and, let's say, hands-on). Further, I believe without question that abolitionist and vegan ideas are well-reasoned enough that disagreement with them easily withstands a charitable reading of disagreements with abolition as an ideology or veganism as a practice. Nonviolence in discourse starts with engaging what people have actually written rather than misrepresenting their views as a rhetorical tactic.

I have no doubt that there will be occasional lapses, but no one's perfect. I am deeply ambivalent about any sort of leadership role in our community. But in the end, my work is about me and my relationship to other animals, and that's what I want to keep uppermost in my mind.  My sense is that discipline, practical knowledge and a commitment to what we owe others (whether we consider them lovable) are all important parts of a good moral character. Fidelity is important, even with our opponents.

I don't consider much of my interaction with the advocacy community to be particularly uncharitable.  Nevertheless, virtue calls us to be models when we can be, and I am daily reminded of just how sorely the advocacy needs good role models.

May peace be upon us all.