Being An Effective Advocate For Animals
Print This Post
A friend sent me a link to this podcast from PETA’s vice president, Bruce Fredrick, about being not just an advocate for animals, but an effective one. You can find a similar article by Fredrick is a chapter in the second edition of In Defense of Animals, and my advice is to pick up a copy and read it in addition to listening to this recording. His advice is ‘stolen’ from strategies used in the corporate world, which I love.
Whatever your feelings on PETA, Fredrick brings up several good points. When we think about what we’re actually trying to accomplish, many of us rarely stop to think that our actions may be hurting our cause instead of helping it. As he says, we work very very hard, but we don’t seem to get much done. There’s a lot of debate about why that is, but I think that perhaps our general attitude does have something to do with it. Here are a just couple points he makes that I think at least bear consideration…
1. Always be respectful
Being nasty pisses people off. Bottom line. I’m guilty of this one on a very regular basis, but Fredrick brings up a good point – being nasty to other people may make us feel good, but it doesn’t help animals. To use, these issues are deep and incredibly painful, but others don’t view them that way. We have to work to change that, and we won’t be able to do that if we’ve alienated them.
2. Dialogue
No rants, no monologues. We may be able to bludgeon some people, but many of them have heard the same spiel again and again, or they think they know everything already. Instead of treating them to yet another ‘crazy animal lover’ rant, Fredrick suggests we prepare facts for an honest conversation, no matter how facetious their questions and objections may seem. Grant people the opportunity to be heard, and you come away looking like a hero.
3. Optimism
Fredrick says we should be optimistic, upbeat, and good natured. If we’re happy, and we’re supporting this, it’s an indication that this is the right way to be.
4. Say bye-bye to personal purity
I have some disagreements with this one, but I think it bears thinking about. If we can convince people it’s not about us being more pure, if we can admit that we too are guilty of causing some suffering, but that we’re doing our best, we become much more human and likable. By using our actions to show that being vegan is easy, we promote it much better.
5. Dress for success
This one’s in the book, but it’s also one of the most important. By dressing well and being well groomed, you’re showing people that vegans aren’t just a stereotypical caricature of a tree-hugging hippy or tattooed punk. More than that, you prove that going vegan won’t destroy your lifestyle – you can still wear make-up, nice clothes, and bathe. We’re more approachable and less dismissible, we make veganism more attractive to people who enjoy embracing the norms of society.
I liked that podcast for the most part. I think it’s much more important to be effective than to be right.
However, I disagree with a few things Bruce said:
Respectful – it’s important to respect people, but a lot of people get confused about where to draw the line. Meat-eaters often think any discussion of veganism, especially during dinner, is disrespectful. And some omnis will try to silence veg*ns by claiming the veg*n is being offensive, even when they aren’t. So, I completely agree with Bruce that we shouldn’t call people names or respond with aggression to aggression. And we should be sensitive to criticisms, particularly claims of racism and sexism, but far too often veg*ns are afraid to speak at all. There are more quiet, meek veg*ns than there are rude, obnoxious veg*ns. So I think it’s much more important to encourage veg*ns to speak rather than to tell them to only speak in this or that way. Bruce’s own personal experiences are his and they are not representative of all veg*n’s experiences.
Purity – Well, I think veganism is a process, not truly a goal. Things are always changing. And we all need to forgive ourselves and others for minor mistakes. But I do think it’s important to clearly define some borders. Milk, eggs, and honey are out. Tofu, seitan, beans, veggies, fruits, grains are in. When someone says they’re vegan and then they eat food that clearly has animal products in it, like a muffin with honey or an egg bagel, that person makes veganism more confusing for other people to understand. Moreover, that person doesn’t demonstrate their commitment to themselves or to others. If someone wants to call themselves vegan, they should be as vegan as possible, that is, they should strive for “personal purity”. If they don’t want to do that, they should say they’re “mostly vegan” or “almost vegan.” There’s no shame in those terms and people should use them when they accurately describe their lifestyle.
You know, raw foodists often use a percentage. They say they’re 90% raw or 100% raw. I think vegans should adopt that strategy and start using percentages, too. The percentages make a lot of sense to people and put veganism into a context they already understand. For example, we should say, “Omnis with fast-food burger diets are 10% vegan. Omnis with healthier diets are 50% vegan. Vegetarians are 80% vegan. Vegans are 100% vegan.”
Dress for success – Vegans and animal advocates should dress however they feel most comfortable. We are a variety of people with a variety of styles and there’s absolutely no reason we should mute our individual style.
That said, I understand Bruce’s point isn’t about style. And it’s not about respect or optimism or purity… I think his real point is that when we’re advocating on behalf of animals, we should try to keep our message clear. We should eliminate distractions so people can focus on the animals. If that means dressing like the average person, avoiding negativity, a overlooking minor impurities, then Bruce thinks we should do that. I agree to the point that the message should stay clear, but I stop at the point where that involves compromising personal convictions or seriously altering our personalities.
I like the percentage approach. Perhaps from now on I will say I am 90% vegan, striving for 100%. At times I make a compromise between what would be the purest approach I can take and what will sit better with my companion. For example, I am traveling in Ireland and Scotland and vegan food choices are not readily available here. What this means, often, is that my sister and I (she’s omni) often check several eating places before choosing one that might have something for me. I don’t want to dominate the entire trip by my food choices because that isn’t going to make her feel that what I do is in any way easy.
To me it is easy, so I prefer to go as far vegan as I can reasonably without existing on tea alone. Sometimes this means I am eating something made with milk, I’ve discovered (sometimes belatedly), just to make what looks like an actual meal. It’s an awkward situation and I don’t think I’ve made the wisest choices each time.
My point, really, is that I am still working this out and I think I’m doing better as I go.
I’ve never heard the percentage approach, but I think it’s interesting. However, doesn’t it label non-vegan behavior with the more desirable vegan label? If I can say I’m 90% vegan, doesn’t that sound better than vegetarian if you’re attempting to make the transition? Will that make people more comfortable with not taking that last little step? More to Bruce’s point, is anyone more than 95% vegan?
We all do have our own styles and I see nothing wrong with that. Case in point – I have two lip piercings and several tattoos. However, if your ‘comfortable’ dress offends people and puts them off your message, don’t you see that as a problem?
I also don’t think Bruce would advocate not speaking up, ever. That’s our job, in his opinion. We have to speak up, but we can’t do it in a way that turns people off. Or we hurt more than we help.
CV, I spent a month or so in Thailand and Cambodia when I was a senior in high school and still a vegetarian and I totally empathize (as well as am so jealous. I wanna go to Scotland). In Thailand the translation for vegetarian indicates that you still eat fish, and traditional Thai cooking utilizes a lot of fish paste. It was almost impossible to do, but I still took every step I could to do it. I controlled everything I could. That brings up an interesting point: If you are out to eat and specifically order a meal that you believe to be vegan and when it shows up at the table it isn’t, what do you do? Do you send it back to make a point – a waste of food, but an action which will keep your veganism intact. Or, do you simply eat it and be more careful next time?
Check out Jens most recent blog post: Hint: Nothing is not the correct answer. at http://www.not-quiteright.net/tvg
I think it totally depends on the person. But personally, I’d prefer if everyone were 90% vegan and said they’re 90% vegan than if 10% of people say they’re 100% vegan but go around eating nonvegan foods.
Yes, there are people who are truly 99-100% vegan.
We all make mistakes or prioritize choices sometimes, but there’s a big difference between accidentally eating animal products and eating them because it’s convenient or because they taste good. We shouldn’t beat ourselves up if we make mistakes, but we also shouldn’t go around being dishonest with ourselves and others about where the vegan line is drawn. Example: animal products in the building materials of our homes (drywall) and cars (tires) can’t easily be avoided. Animal products on our plates can be.
It depends on the order. But generally, I send it back. It’s not food. If they brought me a plate of rocks or an order of nails I’d send that back, too.
However, if it’s a portion of the food that can be removed, say some cheese on top of a salad, I may simply eat around it the way I’ll eat around foods I dislike.
What’s far more likely to happen is that I’ll order something thinking it’s vegan and then find out later on a messageboard or blog that there are “eggs in the bread” or “chicken broth in the soup.” Food servers often can’t honestly answer the question, “Is it vegan?” correctly and wind up misleading people. If we vegans don’t take our veganism seriously, why should we expect food servers to?
Funny story: I basically grew up vegetarian so I didn’t learned the various kinds of meats and all the weird names for them. However, I learned that the “V” words tend to elicit scorn from other diners and food servers, so as a young adult I chose not to say upfront “I’m vegetarian” and instead I’d just order food that looked vegetarian. That was a mistake. Meek veg*ns suffer. I’d occasionally choose menu items that had bits of meat in them simply because I didn’t know. And then when the food arrived, I’d have to send it back and order something else.
For me, when it comes to flesh, it’s never been a choice of sending it back or not. I can’t bear to eat it, so if there’s any choice at all, it’s about whether to order a new meal or not. When it comes to dairy, eggs, and honey there was a time when I wouldn’t send it back and I’d just eat it. But now, more and more, I simply can’t do it. It’s not food.
By the way, for international travel, the Vegan Society created a “vegan passport” that explains veganism in a variety of languages:
http://store.foodfightgrocery.com/veganpassport.html
(I’m going to get one before I travel abroad next time. My trips to France were difficult and I wasn’t even vegan then. I was still just vegetarian.)
That’s acting like “people” is some homogenous group. They aren’t. Omnivores are varied just like vegans are varied. Some will be attracted by perceived radicalism like piercings and tattoos and some won’t.
I do think we should strive to make a good impression whenever we’re in the public eye, but that doesn’t mean we should pander to the lowest common denominator or that we should mute our personal style.
And perceptions change with explanation. I did a classroom presentation with a wonderful woman from Farm Sanctuary. At first I thought it was odd how she dressed in clothes with stains on them. But partway through a demonstration she explained that she buys her clothes at a second-hand store because re-using clothing is better for the environment. Her explanation made sense to me and to the students and put her stains into a perspective that made them badges of heroism rather than blemishes. On top of that, the demonstration was for young children, who tend to be very accepting about variety of appearance (when they get a little older they’re far less accepting). So… I think it just all depends on the context.
I say let the mainstream vegans be the vegan ambassadors for the mainstream meat-eaters, and the non-mainstream vegans be the ambassadors for the non-mainstream meat-eaters. I, personally, dress in a very mainstream way. I look very “normal.” But even I don’t like being told what to wear and how to present myself. I have a strong rebellion to the notion that vegans should look a certain way so as to make veganism more appealing to others. That goes against many of my values and I simply reject it out of hand.
Moreover, Bruce, as a man and as a PETA spokesperson, shouldn’t be telling women to wear make-up, shave, and embrace traditional mainstream femininity. It comes across to feminists that PETA will sell out women’s causes for animal’s causes and that’s NOT COOL. They shouldn’t be telling people to dress mainstream – to straighten kinky hair or shave off dreadlocks, to remove piercings or cover tattoos, or anything similar. So, though I don’t think Bruce’s podcast truly did that, the potential is there. They need to be very careful about telling activists what to wear and how to look.
Lastly, effective animal advocacy comes in many forms. Think about it: Will it matter more if you as an individual demand mainstream business to embrace veganism or if you as an individual begin a vegan business or invest in vegan businesses? Will it matter more if you write a book/article/blog about veganism or if you leaflet the shopping mall for a year? Honestly, who knows which is more effective? It all depends on your skills and desires…
wow, that was way too long of a comment. Sorry.
I despise claims of personal purity – it reeks of its religiously fanatical undertones. And it’s equally as spurious as the religious fanatics’ claims. “Purity” by definition, in this context, is 100% vegan (whatever that means), which is a delusion, a fiction. As you said Elaine, we can never live a life free from the exploitation of nonhumans – it defines our culture, in some respects. Therefore, to claim that you are “%” vegan suggests a precision that is unattainable; further, it suggests that a moral principle can be quantified, which demeans the principle. I consciously avoid all animal products, etc., therefore, I am vegan – purity, “%’s” aside, you are either vegan or not.
I believe that sending back a food item that is served non-vegan is counter-productive: the food will no be re-served, it will be wasted, therefore, the animal that was exploited for that food item was unjustly made to suffer for less-than no defensible reason. Sending your food item back and quite literally throwing the animal away, does not suggest that you take your Veganism seriously. The conversation that precedes that moment, the ordering, the conversation with the waiter, make’s this point effectively; if an accident occurs and non-vegan food is delivered, the point can be made again, however, to waste the food make’s something truly tragic even more so (if that’s even possible).
I think your comments about “dressing for success” are accurate Elaine, however, “individuality” (although this is overstated as most “individuals” are simply another carbon copy of their group of carbon copies) often trumps progress in my experience. Satisfying the stereotypes is that one further reason to ignore the message being delivered; indeed, different people can advocate in different groups, as you said Elaine, however, it may come at a cost. For me, if I were told that I could affect change to X degree if I modify my appearance or “norm” myself, I believe that I have an obligation to do so. Although perhaps Bruce overstates the potential negatives of not dressing well, etc. (although I don’t believe he does).
Advocacy does come in certain shapes and forms, but that doesn’t change the message delivered in the podcast: there are certain ways of doing the advocacy that, according to Bruce, work, while others do not. I think his points are effective to this extent.
Check out Alexs most recent blog post: We are, after all, helping them. at http://www.not-quiteright.net/tvg
We seem to disagree about one point: When I order vegan food at a restaurant I do so in order to receive vegan food. Seems like you do it to have a conversation about animal rights with the food server.
FYI, this article is related to the original post:
http://www.veganstreet.com/handbook/ahchapter7.html
I think the issue isn’t so much the conversation with the waiter.
I think the point here is that the damage has been done. Certainly this argument could be used by meat-eaters also. But in the case of an honest mistake… it’s bad enough that the animal has been made to suffer for someone’s dinner, but for that animal to have suffered for nothing… well, to many people that’s worse.
I see your point caroline. And if you chose to eat the dish yourself, fine. But I won’t eat it. I don’t eat animals. It would be similar to me as if a restaurant served me human meat or human milk. Sure, the harm’s been done and it might be a shame to let that death “go to waste,” but I can’t eat it.
I have read the discussion about How vegan are you quite a few times
I think this is how we should look at it, if you’re not consuming what I’ll term the baseline animal products, e.g. meat, honey, leather, silk, then you are vegan, using terms like I’m almost vegan or about 95% can be helpful conversationaly to describe your basic diet, but that is where a 2nd distinction is arrived at, are you a dietary vegan eating this way for your health or are you an ethical vegan because you feel it’s a moral injustice perpetrated on nonhumans.
If it’s the latter and you already are not using the Baseline animal derived by-products as defined by the Ameican Vegan Society or The Vegan Society (British), e.g. leather, Fur, Silk, Wool, and other animal products in your toiletries etc, at this point you are “100% vegan” or “Vegan”
The term 95% or 100% vegan isn’t brought up by vegans because it isn’t necassary, the Charge no one is a hundred percent vegan is most likely to come from a non-vegan attempting to belittle our efforts, as stated above for ethical vegans the baseline has already been reached and you are 100% vegan.
The response to non-vegans can be used this way, I don’t consciously consume any animal products but I am after all not perfect, so yes there may be leather seats in the car I drive or animal products in the tires of my bike however IAm 100% vegan and am striving daily to do Even More than my baseline requirements as an ethical vegan.
I Hope the term Baseline helps, let me know what you think, hey <remember I’m not Perfect.