Tuesday, February 21, 2012
New Outreach Posters (Be fair! Go vegan!)
Two new posters from Jo and me. For those who are concerned about this sort of thing, the approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text for Flesch Kincaid is 2.79 (so, just below third-grade reading level). The Flesch Reading ease is 85.64%.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Is veganism healthy?
As an abolitionist, I promote veganism because animal use is unfair. However, one of the common questions about and objections to veganism is whether veganism is nutritionally sound or healthy. It is important to understand the question of health as a vegan generally, as well as it place in the education process.
Sensational stories in news media aside, many health organizations believe that a well-planned vegan diet can be healthy; still others claims that there are considerable health benefits to plant-only diets in terms of heart disease, cancer, etc. That doesn't mean you can't be unhealthy on a vegan diet; just that the same generally applies to all diets: planning and balance are important. In a 2009 position paper, however, the American Dietetic Association wrote:
But what about other organizations?
The American Dietetic Association is hardly on the radical fringe, but it is not alone in its position. Private and public sector health organizations across a continuum of care agree that a well planned, plant-only diet can be healthy. Organizations that have made public statements of the healthiness of a plant-only diet include dietetic associations, governmental bodies and private clinics.
The American Dietetic Association (1), Dietitians of Canada (2), the British National Health Service (3), the British Nutrition Foundation (4), the Dietitians Association of Australia (5), the United States Department of Agriculture (6), the National Institutes of Health (7), the Mayo Clinic (8), the Heart and Stroke Foundation (9), among others, all provide information on healthy living as well as nutritional suggestions for plant-based diets.
What are the common recommendations?
The consistent recommendation (should anyone read the sources above) is that vegans should ensure that they intake appropriate amounts of calories overall for their age, sex, lifestyle, etc., and that they should eat a varied diet with foods rich in calcium, iron, vitamin D, vitamin B12, zinc and other nutrients. Although there is ample debate about vegan nutrition in terms of absorption and lots of arcana and which foods to eat in what order, the National Institutes of Health fact sheets for health professionals make it clear that there are plant sources for
There has also been a lot of back and forth recently about the Harvard School of Public Health's Healthy Plate and Healthy Pyramid. Regardless, the Mayo Clinic provides a pyramid suitable for vegans that recommends:
I am not a dietitian. However, I try to eat nutrient dense foods. For example, I'll eat muesli, dried fruit and fortified rice milk when I can for breakfast. I eat salads with spinach, arugula, collards, kale and other greens, as well as lentils, chick peas, and other beans with rice, quinoa, couscous, amanrath and other grains, as well as tofu, tempeh, etc., in order to add calcium, iron and zinc to my diet. I eat fruit in smoothies and whole for a treat. Plants are beautiful, nutritious and they taste wonderful. It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
What about 'the health argument'?
Advocacy organizations or individual advocates may claim that the 'health argument' turns people vegan. However, chronic health issues are common among North Americans, as are awareness raising campaigns about health on the part of national health organizations. Taken together, they suggest a general lack of knowledge and concerned action with regard to nutrition and health in practice among the general public.
People may, indeed, claim that health is important to them, but it does not necessarily match up in real life practices. In combination with other motivations, however, it seems plausible that people may see value in at least adopting a plant-only diet. That doesn't mean that health provides no motivation. It simply means that, by itself, however, a 'health argument' does not provide sufficient justification for veganism, or even, necessarily for a plant-only diet. The health argument also does not address leather shoes, circuses and other animal uses that vegans avoid.
On the other hand, few people want to be unhealthy.
Although both are empirical questions, whether health motivates change, the idea of worsening health by adopting veganism probably demotivates change. In that light, it is important for advocates to be able to respond to basic questions about or objections to veganism, nutrition and health, even if it only means providing others with references to expert opinions and evidence-based resources.
All other things being equal, however, there are no substantive reasons to use nonhuman animals for food purposes for human health; in fact, an increasing number of studies show that well-planned, plant-based diets may provide health benefits. A well-planned diet is important, and be sure to check with a registered dietitian if you have dietary concerns.
But if you are not vegan already, morally worried by the use of animals, why not give veganism a try? Don't let health concerns deter you; using nonhuman animals is unfair! The resources below provide elaborate information on healthy plant-only diets, sources of vitamins and nutrients and other information. Read through the information; decide for yourself. Make a meal plan and go vegan!
Notes
1. See: http://www.eatright.org/about/content.aspx?id=8357
2. See: http://www.dietitians.ca/Nutrition-Resources-A-Z/Factsheets/Vegetarian/Eating-Guidelines-for-Vegans.aspx
3. See: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets.aspx
4. See: http://www.nutrition.org.uk/publications/briefingpapers/vegetarian-nutrition
5. See: http://www.choosemyplate.gov/healthy-eating-tips/tips-for-vegetarian.html
6. See http://daa.asn.au/for-the-public/smart-eating-for-you/nutrition-a-z/vegetarian-diets/
7. See: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_120152.html
8. See: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vegetarian-diet/HQ01596
9. See: http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ikIQLcMWJtE&b=4016859&ct=6636807
10. See http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/calcium#h2
11. See http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional#h2
12. See http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Zinc-HealthProfessional#h3
13. See http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional
14. See http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminB12-HealthProfessional#h3
Sensational stories in news media aside, many health organizations believe that a well-planned vegan diet can be healthy; still others claims that there are considerable health benefits to plant-only diets in terms of heart disease, cancer, etc. That doesn't mean you can't be unhealthy on a vegan diet; just that the same generally applies to all diets: planning and balance are important. In a 2009 position paper, however, the American Dietetic Association wrote:
�It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.� Journal of the American Dietetic Association, July 2009. 109(7): 1266- 1282.
But what about other organizations?
The American Dietetic Association is hardly on the radical fringe, but it is not alone in its position. Private and public sector health organizations across a continuum of care agree that a well planned, plant-only diet can be healthy. Organizations that have made public statements of the healthiness of a plant-only diet include dietetic associations, governmental bodies and private clinics.
The American Dietetic Association (1), Dietitians of Canada (2), the British National Health Service (3), the British Nutrition Foundation (4), the Dietitians Association of Australia (5), the United States Department of Agriculture (6), the National Institutes of Health (7), the Mayo Clinic (8), the Heart and Stroke Foundation (9), among others, all provide information on healthy living as well as nutritional suggestions for plant-based diets.
What are the common recommendations?
The consistent recommendation (should anyone read the sources above) is that vegans should ensure that they intake appropriate amounts of calories overall for their age, sex, lifestyle, etc., and that they should eat a varied diet with foods rich in calcium, iron, vitamin D, vitamin B12, zinc and other nutrients. Although there is ample debate about vegan nutrition in terms of absorption and lots of arcana and which foods to eat in what order, the National Institutes of Health fact sheets for health professionals make it clear that there are plant sources for
- Calcium. Plant sources of calcium include tofu, kale, calcium fortified soy, rice and nut milks and (plant-only) breakfast cereals (10).
- Iron. Plant sources of iron include various beans, tofu, spinach, raisins, iron fortified soy, rice and nut milks and (plant-only) breakfast cereals (11).
- Zinc. Plant sources of zinc include beans, cashews, chickpeas, and zinc iron fortified soy, rice and nut milks and (plant-only) breakfast cereals (12).
- Vitamin D. Plant sources of vitamin D include sunlight! But more seriously, many fortified soy, rice and nut milks and breakfast cereals are fortified with vitamin D (13).
- Vitamin B12. Plant sources of B12 include B12 fortified soy, rice and nut milks and (plant-only) breakfast cereals as well as nutritional yeast.
There has also been a lot of back and forth recently about the Harvard School of Public Health's Healthy Plate and Healthy Pyramid. Regardless, the Mayo Clinic provides a pyramid suitable for vegans that recommends:
- 2 servings of fats
- 2 servings of fruits
- 4 servings of vegetables
- 5 servings of legumes, nuts and other similar foods
- 6 servings of grains
I am not a dietitian. However, I try to eat nutrient dense foods. For example, I'll eat muesli, dried fruit and fortified rice milk when I can for breakfast. I eat salads with spinach, arugula, collards, kale and other greens, as well as lentils, chick peas, and other beans with rice, quinoa, couscous, amanrath and other grains, as well as tofu, tempeh, etc., in order to add calcium, iron and zinc to my diet. I eat fruit in smoothies and whole for a treat. Plants are beautiful, nutritious and they taste wonderful. It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
What about 'the health argument'?
Advocacy organizations or individual advocates may claim that the 'health argument' turns people vegan. However, chronic health issues are common among North Americans, as are awareness raising campaigns about health on the part of national health organizations. Taken together, they suggest a general lack of knowledge and concerned action with regard to nutrition and health in practice among the general public.
People may, indeed, claim that health is important to them, but it does not necessarily match up in real life practices. In combination with other motivations, however, it seems plausible that people may see value in at least adopting a plant-only diet. That doesn't mean that health provides no motivation. It simply means that, by itself, however, a 'health argument' does not provide sufficient justification for veganism, or even, necessarily for a plant-only diet. The health argument also does not address leather shoes, circuses and other animal uses that vegans avoid.
On the other hand, few people want to be unhealthy.
Although both are empirical questions, whether health motivates change, the idea of worsening health by adopting veganism probably demotivates change. In that light, it is important for advocates to be able to respond to basic questions about or objections to veganism, nutrition and health, even if it only means providing others with references to expert opinions and evidence-based resources.
All other things being equal, however, there are no substantive reasons to use nonhuman animals for food purposes for human health; in fact, an increasing number of studies show that well-planned, plant-based diets may provide health benefits. A well-planned diet is important, and be sure to check with a registered dietitian if you have dietary concerns.
But if you are not vegan already, morally worried by the use of animals, why not give veganism a try? Don't let health concerns deter you; using nonhuman animals is unfair! The resources below provide elaborate information on healthy plant-only diets, sources of vitamins and nutrients and other information. Read through the information; decide for yourself. Make a meal plan and go vegan!
Notes
1. See: http://www.eatright.org/about/content.aspx?id=8357
2. See: http://www.dietitians.ca/Nutrition-Resources-A-Z/Factsheets/Vegetarian/Eating-Guidelines-for-Vegans.aspx
3. See: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets.aspx
4. See: http://www.nutrition.org.uk/publications/briefingpapers/vegetarian-nutrition
5. See: http://www.choosemyplate.gov/healthy-eating-tips/tips-for-vegetarian.html
6. See http://daa.asn.au/for-the-public/smart-eating-for-you/nutrition-a-z/vegetarian-diets/
7. See: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_120152.html
8. See: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vegetarian-diet/HQ01596
9. See: http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ikIQLcMWJtE&b=4016859&ct=6636807
10. See http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/calcium#h2
11. See http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional#h2
12. See http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Zinc-HealthProfessional#h3
13. See http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional
14. See http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminB12-HealthProfessional#h3
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Being funny (and why it's important)
As is often the case with my blog, I try to teach other advocates. I try to teach them not only how to be better advocates (which strikes me as kind of a smaller endeavour), but how to be better persons (which is often herculean). But for all those vegans who have, hours afterward, think "I shoulda said!!!" a blog on how to be funny (and why it's important).
But why should you be funny? As an advocate, you'll often be faced with situations when you are outnumbered by nonadvocates and nonvegans. This is less common in advocacy situations, more common in social ones. Your job is always the same: seek hegemony!! By which I mean, establish relationships, lead those who agree, and educate those who don't. Humour is an important way to establish social relationships, and it's a fun thing to do, both for yourself and for others.
What does humour signal to others? Some expressions of humour (e.g., more obvious sarcasms) tend to signal a weaker social position, and these (rightly or wrongly) influence other claims you may make. Similarly, some expressions of humour signal a stronger social position that connotes authority, knowledge, and confidence in one's views (again, rightly or wrongly). Between the two, which provides the stronger basis for engaging people about animal ethics? (It's the latter.) In short, you can be a more engaging advocate by being a more engaging person. That means having a sense of humour and knowing when to express it correctly in public.
You might ask, but what's wrong with being humourless? As most people who know me know, I am a deeply humourless person left to myself. But eventually, I had to ask myself, how well did that help me as an advocate? Most people really don't enjoy conversations in which they feel they are being proselytized to at their own expense. It's important to remember, others are not the instruments of our ideology; they don't exist as ways to test our educational skills or to gratify a messianic complex. When you want to have a conversation with someone about something that's important to you, humour is one offering (among others that you might make) in exchange for their time. Being humourless only means you have less to offer someone for their mindshare.
How to be funny (in a nutshell)
This isn't a comprehensive guide. It's simply a handful of things to take into account. Humour, like many things, is a habit that must be cultivated and requires practice. Practice with your friends! Nevertheless, some guidance:
First, don't put down; lift up. If few people enjoy humourless interactions with others, even fewer people enjoy conversations in which they are solely the instrument of someone else's sense of humour. This kind of humour draws us into using others as means to our ends. We're against that, right? That doesn't mean you should never insult anyone; it's often the case that insulting someone still treats them as ends in themselves (indeed, a rakish reductio is sometimes helpful when it comes to explaining why a view is misguided). However, humour that brings everyone into the joke builds a community around easy to understand concepts in which everyone is treated as an end in him or herself.
Second, be accessible, but in a way that enriches people. Marc Bekoff talks about the 'play bow' in dog behaviour in The Emotional Lives of Animals. It is pretty much what it sounds like: dogs bow to indicate they want to play. I think this is a terrific example, both of how dogs are good persons and good philosophers. Humour and play are primarily social. Private jokes that ridicule people are what they are. Public jokes, however, are of much greater use in advocacy, in large part because if the community doesn't understand your joke, it may amuse you, but it's not amusing anyone else. Save private jokes for occasions when they'll be understood by your audience, or at most, use them carefully and strategically.
Third, remember, in text, no one knows you're being funny. Much is lost in nonverbal communication. The tone, among other elements of speech, do not come across in writing. Satire may be misunderstood. Hyperbole may be taken very, very, very, very seriously. Sarcasm may be read as lighthearted, or it may be read as angry and bitter. And with love, many animal advocates say some pretty weird shit that we all hold our breath and hope turns out to be irony or sarcasm. You can signal your joke to your audience in writing with phrases like "but seriously", emoticons, or other ways.
Fourth, always keep in mind the most important thing to humour:
Timing! It's the truth, a truism, it comes from a true place, and all that makes it no less true. Timing is important to saying something funny. So are the elements of surprise, of play, and of saying something that is useful and otherwise valuable to the audience. Jokes that point out the obvious aren't really jokes. Timing is important to saying something funny, in part because it builds up the anticipation of something positive. Good timing is what makes a joke a reward for the audience.
Fifth, observe all the other rules of good humour: don't say boring, tasteless and rude things unless they are really, really funny. As a corollary, racist, sexist, heterosexist, ableist, speciesist, classist expressions are expressions of violence and are not funny; being funny is an expression of knowledge; prejudice is an expression of ignorance.
There are other important things to keep in mind, but myself aside, most people know how to be funny. What many advocates have less experience with is bringing humour into their activism or conversations.
Some examples
Let's imagine someone starts picking on you for being vegan. Assuming that this is not a violent attempt to bully you, but rather more someone who is uncomfortable with his or her own choices overwhelmed by the overwhelming nature of your manifest awesomeness, this is a good opportunity to show a sense of humour.
When people make jokes about bacon and other animals, I don't flip the table; I claim that everything tastes better with avocado. Then I list off all of the things that taste better with avocado: burritos, sandwiches, salads, toast, ice cream, chocolate pie, table salt, champagne, my fingers, etc. If I had put 'my fingers' in the middle of this sentence, would it have been as funny? Timing (seriously).
Or, let's imagine that someone asks about giving sheep the vote. HAR! (and indeed, I slapped my knee after typing that). S/he's trying to be funny at your expense (not very funny, right?). When I encounter this in the wild, I handle it in a few different ways depending on the situation.
But perhaps a better way to address it would be to calmly and carefully explain that yes, we do want to give sheep the vote, but not just sheep...all of them. And then explain in the same earnest deadpan that a right not to be used as property would not entitle sheep to a right to vote. Besides, it's not clear that sheep could punch the ballots; although I have no doubt that they would make smart voting choices that reflected their own interests.
Finally, another common case where humor can be helpful is when people ask what you eat, where you get your protein, etc? Sometimes this question is sincere, and sometimes it's meant to be a gotcha style question, in which the accuser expects your eyes to go wide as if you had never heard this question before. DUNDUNDUNNN!!!!
In that situation, I might say bark and twigs, and that I'm also partial to dirt, and if I feel so inclined, I will throw in a few statistics about the percentage of protein in the average cup of topsoil and how it's the food of the future. And then I'll transition to pointing out the American Dietetic Association and other national bodies agree that a well-planned vegan diet can be very healthy. But seriously, dirt tastes bad and it's probably unhealthy.
Humour in the advocacy community can be difficult. There are a lot of reasons for this: in part, social movements often draw anti-social people, people are frustrated, people are often overly sensitive, many are already picked on enough, etc. When you are dealing with another advocate who ridicules your view, I think the best approach is simply to ignore him or her. Antics and provocateuring are a bane to the movement and, along with a poor sense of boundaries, suggest anti-social tendencies; any attention that goes toward this kind of activity is, I think, not well-spent.
On the other hand, it is sometimes helpful to point out to other advocates that what other animals really need is our sincerity and our seriousness, and encourage them to think more critically about their own views. On the third hand, some organizations deserve a little light-hearted but critical engagement.
In all three examples, humour rebuts the claim of your antagonist, and then clears the space for you to explain the issues in a clear and engaging fashion, and in a way that doesn't turn what you're saying into an early morning visit from someone selling dictionaries (no offense to dictionaries).
If you just glower and make fists in your pockets, you won't have a chance to explain your views. If you start shouting incoherently and flip the table (as I often do), people will wonder whether you are okay. If all you do is make cutting remarks that make people feel stupid, it just discourages someone from thinking critically about their choices.And really, it's the last that makes or breaks vegan education.
No matter how much torture porn an advocate shows, no matter how many donation buttons a website has, no matter how many people go naked and how much chest and back hair they may have, vegan education is a matter of helping others to cultivate a sense that harming nonhuman animals is wrong as a moral matter, and that they can, in fact, choose better for the rest of their lives.
If you're not yet vegan, then I encourage you to choose better; even a worldview tastes better with avocado and like the sticker says, veganism is clucking awesome. If you are already vegan, but want to learn more about veganism or the abolitionist approach, then you can do so at abolitionistapproach.com.
But why should you be funny? As an advocate, you'll often be faced with situations when you are outnumbered by nonadvocates and nonvegans. This is less common in advocacy situations, more common in social ones. Your job is always the same: seek hegemony!! By which I mean, establish relationships, lead those who agree, and educate those who don't. Humour is an important way to establish social relationships, and it's a fun thing to do, both for yourself and for others.
What does humour signal to others? Some expressions of humour (e.g., more obvious sarcasms) tend to signal a weaker social position, and these (rightly or wrongly) influence other claims you may make. Similarly, some expressions of humour signal a stronger social position that connotes authority, knowledge, and confidence in one's views (again, rightly or wrongly). Between the two, which provides the stronger basis for engaging people about animal ethics? (It's the latter.) In short, you can be a more engaging advocate by being a more engaging person. That means having a sense of humour and knowing when to express it correctly in public.
You might ask, but what's wrong with being humourless? As most people who know me know, I am a deeply humourless person left to myself. But eventually, I had to ask myself, how well did that help me as an advocate? Most people really don't enjoy conversations in which they feel they are being proselytized to at their own expense. It's important to remember, others are not the instruments of our ideology; they don't exist as ways to test our educational skills or to gratify a messianic complex. When you want to have a conversation with someone about something that's important to you, humour is one offering (among others that you might make) in exchange for their time. Being humourless only means you have less to offer someone for their mindshare.
How to be funny (in a nutshell)
This isn't a comprehensive guide. It's simply a handful of things to take into account. Humour, like many things, is a habit that must be cultivated and requires practice. Practice with your friends! Nevertheless, some guidance:
First, don't put down; lift up. If few people enjoy humourless interactions with others, even fewer people enjoy conversations in which they are solely the instrument of someone else's sense of humour. This kind of humour draws us into using others as means to our ends. We're against that, right? That doesn't mean you should never insult anyone; it's often the case that insulting someone still treats them as ends in themselves (indeed, a rakish reductio is sometimes helpful when it comes to explaining why a view is misguided). However, humour that brings everyone into the joke builds a community around easy to understand concepts in which everyone is treated as an end in him or herself.
Second, be accessible, but in a way that enriches people. Marc Bekoff talks about the 'play bow' in dog behaviour in The Emotional Lives of Animals. It is pretty much what it sounds like: dogs bow to indicate they want to play. I think this is a terrific example, both of how dogs are good persons and good philosophers. Humour and play are primarily social. Private jokes that ridicule people are what they are. Public jokes, however, are of much greater use in advocacy, in large part because if the community doesn't understand your joke, it may amuse you, but it's not amusing anyone else. Save private jokes for occasions when they'll be understood by your audience, or at most, use them carefully and strategically.
Third, remember, in text, no one knows you're being funny. Much is lost in nonverbal communication. The tone, among other elements of speech, do not come across in writing. Satire may be misunderstood. Hyperbole may be taken very, very, very, very seriously. Sarcasm may be read as lighthearted, or it may be read as angry and bitter. And with love, many animal advocates say some pretty weird shit that we all hold our breath and hope turns out to be irony or sarcasm. You can signal your joke to your audience in writing with phrases like "but seriously", emoticons, or other ways.
Fourth, always keep in mind the most important thing to humour:
Timing! It's the truth, a truism, it comes from a true place, and all that makes it no less true. Timing is important to saying something funny. So are the elements of surprise, of play, and of saying something that is useful and otherwise valuable to the audience. Jokes that point out the obvious aren't really jokes. Timing is important to saying something funny, in part because it builds up the anticipation of something positive. Good timing is what makes a joke a reward for the audience.
Fifth, observe all the other rules of good humour: don't say boring, tasteless and rude things unless they are really, really funny. As a corollary, racist, sexist, heterosexist, ableist, speciesist, classist expressions are expressions of violence and are not funny; being funny is an expression of knowledge; prejudice is an expression of ignorance.
There are other important things to keep in mind, but myself aside, most people know how to be funny. What many advocates have less experience with is bringing humour into their activism or conversations.
Some examples
Let's imagine someone starts picking on you for being vegan. Assuming that this is not a violent attempt to bully you, but rather more someone who is uncomfortable with his or her own choices overwhelmed by the overwhelming nature of your manifest awesomeness, this is a good opportunity to show a sense of humour.
When people make jokes about bacon and other animals, I don't flip the table; I claim that everything tastes better with avocado. Then I list off all of the things that taste better with avocado: burritos, sandwiches, salads, toast, ice cream, chocolate pie, table salt, champagne, my fingers, etc. If I had put 'my fingers' in the middle of this sentence, would it have been as funny? Timing (seriously).
Or, let's imagine that someone asks about giving sheep the vote. HAR! (and indeed, I slapped my knee after typing that). S/he's trying to be funny at your expense (not very funny, right?). When I encounter this in the wild, I handle it in a few different ways depending on the situation.
But perhaps a better way to address it would be to calmly and carefully explain that yes, we do want to give sheep the vote, but not just sheep...all of them. And then explain in the same earnest deadpan that a right not to be used as property would not entitle sheep to a right to vote. Besides, it's not clear that sheep could punch the ballots; although I have no doubt that they would make smart voting choices that reflected their own interests.
Finally, another common case where humor can be helpful is when people ask what you eat, where you get your protein, etc? Sometimes this question is sincere, and sometimes it's meant to be a gotcha style question, in which the accuser expects your eyes to go wide as if you had never heard this question before. DUNDUNDUNNN!!!!
In that situation, I might say bark and twigs, and that I'm also partial to dirt, and if I feel so inclined, I will throw in a few statistics about the percentage of protein in the average cup of topsoil and how it's the food of the future. And then I'll transition to pointing out the American Dietetic Association and other national bodies agree that a well-planned vegan diet can be very healthy. But seriously, dirt tastes bad and it's probably unhealthy.
Humour in the advocacy community can be difficult. There are a lot of reasons for this: in part, social movements often draw anti-social people, people are frustrated, people are often overly sensitive, many are already picked on enough, etc. When you are dealing with another advocate who ridicules your view, I think the best approach is simply to ignore him or her. Antics and provocateuring are a bane to the movement and, along with a poor sense of boundaries, suggest anti-social tendencies; any attention that goes toward this kind of activity is, I think, not well-spent.
On the other hand, it is sometimes helpful to point out to other advocates that what other animals really need is our sincerity and our seriousness, and encourage them to think more critically about their own views. On the third hand, some organizations deserve a little light-hearted but critical engagement.
In all three examples, humour rebuts the claim of your antagonist, and then clears the space for you to explain the issues in a clear and engaging fashion, and in a way that doesn't turn what you're saying into an early morning visit from someone selling dictionaries (no offense to dictionaries).
If you just glower and make fists in your pockets, you won't have a chance to explain your views. If you start shouting incoherently and flip the table (as I often do), people will wonder whether you are okay. If all you do is make cutting remarks that make people feel stupid, it just discourages someone from thinking critically about their choices.And really, it's the last that makes or breaks vegan education.
No matter how much torture porn an advocate shows, no matter how many donation buttons a website has, no matter how many people go naked and how much chest and back hair they may have, vegan education is a matter of helping others to cultivate a sense that harming nonhuman animals is wrong as a moral matter, and that they can, in fact, choose better for the rest of their lives.
If you're not yet vegan, then I encourage you to choose better; even a worldview tastes better with avocado and like the sticker says, veganism is clucking awesome. If you are already vegan, but want to learn more about veganism or the abolitionist approach, then you can do so at abolitionistapproach.com.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Abolitionizing the debate: Francione moves the public and the advocacy community left
In no small way, 2011 has been a year that has witnessed a lot of movement in animal advocacy. Francione's work continues to surge in popularity with advocates. Even five years ago, there were not all that many abolitionists. Now there are probably several hundred, perhaps thousands, active worldwide. Active advocacy does not necessarily mean successful advocacy. However, what's more telling of a public shift is the shift in rhetoric among those organizations dependent on public donations to conduct their work.
Although both positive and negative engagement with Francione and his work comes and goes, 2011 has seen a noticeable increase. This blog post doesn't address those phenomena. Instead, it looks at why Francione's work has such enduring popularity, and how the public, by circumstantial evidence, is moving "left" in light of his work, and how abolitionist organizations are gradually abolitionizing the debate.
First, it's worth pointing out that within the advocacy community, abolitionist and abolitionist-sounding organizations have increased their profile. It would be difficult to imagine a growing list of vegan organizations that promote abolitionist views, such as (but not limited to): Alice Springs Vegan Society, Anima, Animal Freedom, Auckland Abolitionist Vegans Association, Boston Vegan Association, Defensa Animal, Grampian Animal Rights Advocates, LiveVegan, Red Animalista Mendoza, Vegan New Brunswick, Vegan New Zealand, Vegan Maine, Vegan Outreach Lincoln and East Midlands, Vegan:UK, Vegan.fr, ?Veganos pela Aboli��o, and, dare I say it, Vegan Ireland without Francione's highly influential body of work.
Of course, not all advocates form organizations. Individual advocates have created blogs, podcasts, films and other activities to promote abolitionist veganism. Here, the work of Myl�ne Ouellet, Karin Hilpisch, James Crump, Bob and Jenna Torres, Robert Bowen, Sandra Cummings, Chris Poupart, Minku Sharma, Nathan Schneider, Maya Shlayen, Paola Aldana, Randy Sandberg, Alex Chernavsky, Dan Cudahy, Angel Flynn and Timothy Putnam, inter alia, comes to mind. My apologies to the hundreds, indeed, probably thousands I have not named.
Those who claim that abolition has little traction either with the public or animal advocates may have never heard of many of these groups or individuals. Nevertheless, it helps to lift an eye from one�s navel now and again to study what's happening both inside and outside the scene. These organizations have met with anecdotal success with the public. And clearly, they reflect movement in the advocacy community toward the abolitionist approach.
But what about the public?
I've written elsewhere that the public is ready to hear about veganism and that animal use is not invisible. There has also been an increase in both "higher optics" commentary as well as in more abolitionist-sounding rhetoric among more traditional welfare groups criticizing "humane" animal use. Each implies that the public is ready to hear not just about any old veganism, but abolitionist veganism in particular. Some more concrete examples:
Farm Animal Rights Movement (FARM), once a strong proponent of regulated use, claims: "Yes, it took us 15 years or so, but eventually, we got the message loud and clear: the only effective, long-term solution to the obscenity of animal agriculture is to encourage reduced consumption of animal products, leading to the ideal of veganism. It�s the abolitionist approach." At least in this blog, FARM's doesn't merely try to embrace the abolitionist approach, it also tries to embraces abolition's critique of welfare reform: "Welfare reform campaigns are not just inconsistent with, but actually destructive of animal rights advocacy. " (1)
Although I still feel there are issues with FARM's approach (abolitionists promote no consumption of animal products, which is not the same as encouraging reduction), there can be no doubt that this change in attitude (as well as the attitude adopted) would have been impossible without Francione's work. (2) (3) and (4)
As a second example, Marc Bekoff has also recently penned an interesting piece for The Atlantic: �Dead Cow Walking: The Case Against Born-Again Carnivorism.� Bekoff is a prominent animal biologist, ecologist and ethologist whose academic work is very much worth reading. In his piece, Bekoff claims that "pigs, chickens, and other animals raised for food are sentient beings with rich emotional lives. They feel everything from joy to grief." (5)
Although some other sentient animals may not have emotional lives, it seems clear that farm animals do. But what's of interest about Bekoff's claim here is that it's Francione (not Tom Regan) who first introduces the notion that sentience is the only meaningful moral criterion for rights.
Although some other sentient animals may not have emotional lives, it seems clear that farm animals do. But what's of interest about Bekoff's claim here is that it's Francione (not Tom Regan) who first introduces the notion that sentience is the only meaningful moral criterion for rights.
Further, Bekoff argues: �No matter how humanely raised they are, the lives of animals raised for food can be cashed out simply as �dead cow/pig/chicken walking.� Whom we choose to eat is a matter of life and death. I think of the animals' manifesto as �Leave us alone. Don't bring us into the world if you're just going to kill us to satisfy your tastes.�� Theses claims resonate strongly with Francione's more involved critique of domestication as well as his claims with regard to the moral personhood of nonhuman animals. (6) (7)
As a third example, James McWilliams has also written a number of articles, sharply critical of some expressions of animal use, for The Atlantic. A number of his pieces have been interesting, if perhaps somewhat equivocal (for a vegan) about animal use. Nevertheless, his critique of 'free range' animal use in The Atlantic was searing.
"But what if," he writes, "the free-range experience is nothing but a more humane way to force animals into serving our culinary wants? What if the appeal to �nature� does little more than allow us to forget the reality of enslavement, to take solace in the appeal of false freedom?" and "the appeal to 'nature' in free range farming, like most pornography, is essentially disingenuous." (8) Although some have accused McWilliams of defending the meat industry, this makes his critique of �humane" use no less applicable.
Like Bekoff, McWilliams also draws specific attention to sentience. His critique of free range (although novel in its critique of the appeal to nature) also resonates strongly with Francione's frequent and long-standing critique of "humane" animal products. (9) Both Bekoff and McWilliams' pieces were published in The Atlantic, a highly public vehicle with readership of about 400,000 (subscribers � this would not include Web traffic which could be much higher for all I know). Along with Gary Steiner's lonesome but powerful piece in the New York Times a few years ago, these suggest a rise in public interest for an abolitionist message.
Of course, it doesn't follow from this that the public won't reject abolitionist veganism, that the public is not sceptical or does not require further education (in fact, I believe that all of these things are probably true). Nevertheless, newspapers and magazines are not a charity; they simply don't print what they feel the public will not buy or what they do not feel represents an important part of the public dialogue. There have been other examples (although not all this year), which suggest a gradual build over time, and just to pick a handful:
- Francione's own appearance on Citizen Radio:
http://wearecitizenradio.com/2011/03/29/20110329-animal-rights-icon-gary-francione-citizen-radio-invades-democracy-now/ - An interview with Francione in The Believer
http://www.believermag.com/issues/201102/?read=interview_francione - Martin Gilbert and Valery Giroux' back and forth in Le Devoir:
http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/le-devoir-de-philo/338600/peter-singer-la-souffrance-animale-la-poule-et-l-oeuf - Gary Steiner's lonesome if powerful piece in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22steiner.html?pagewanted=all - Lisa Mickleborough's piece in Georgia Straight:
http://www.straight.com/article-275282/vancouver/animal-wrongs
But you get my point.
I also don't think there can be much doubt that Francione's work has heavily influenced groups that have had, charitably put, a more ambivalent or cluttered relationship to abolition (e.g., ARZone, Friends of Animals, Igualdad Animal, Humane Myth, and Peace Advocacy Network, among others). It's true that I don't endorse these organizations for various reasons. On the other hand, it seems silly to deny the reality that each has been heavily influenced by Francione's work; in many cases, his ideas have been formative to their approaches (even if only in a rhetorical way).
I have claimed in the past these organizations take an approach that is ideologically different from both abolition and from new welfarism and, also, that they represent a �leftward� shift in the advocacy community. I consider only the unequivocal promotion of abolitionist veganism to be properly abolitionist (regardless of the label) -- although why my opinion on this would be of importance to anyone is anyone's guess. Nor am I disparaging these organizations by pointing this out. In my view, what's important is that all organizations move toward a more unequivocal and clearer promotion of abolitionist veganism.
Francione might well complain that these groups are appropriating "abolition". There is almost certainly some truth here in several instances. Many organizations respond to the public with what the organizations feel will resonate with them; in that sense, however, they function as a barometer of public opinion. My purpose is not to wedge myself into the middle of the appropriation debate, but rather to simply point out that there is obviously a public ear for abolitionist or abolitionist-sounding claims as there never has been before.
In fact, now is a wonderful time to go vegan, and it�s likely that 2012 will see an organized, transnational and larger-scale abolitionist vegan movement coalesce. Other animal advocacy organizations on the wrong side of history may take the time to reorganize their work to promote abolition and veganism clearly and unequivocally. If they don't, they will be increasingly overshadowed as the Humane Society of the United States and its coalition of welfare interests as they drain the field of donors and volunteers who want regulation, not abolition.
In contrast, abolitionist vegan organizations are clearly on the rise and abolition is gaining traction with the public as these groups slowly but surely find their footing and go forward in the struggle to abolish (not regulate) animal use.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)