Criticism Is Not Enough
Print This Post
This is part 2 in a series. Go here for part one, and go here for part 3.
Prof. Gary Francione: Animal Rights – The Last 10 Years:
He says every vegan basically saves 3000 animal lives.*
Video from Barna on Vimeo.
Even though Gary Francione promotes veganism, the video here is essentially a criticism of the animal rights movement. The criticisms are from Francione’s perspective as a professor of law. That is, they are mostly criticisms of legal reforms of animal law.
Please note: At 42 minutes in Gary Francione admits there is no empirical proof for his claim that “improving animal welfare makes people feel less uncomfortable about animal exploitation.” He asserts that his thesis is true because it’s “common sense and intuition.”
To me, it’s not common sense. My own experience has shown me that people who get interested in animal welfare and who are allowed to let their compassion and empathy for animals grow become more and more interested in abolition. That is, my experience and intuition tell me that welfarism is part of an incrementalist abolitionism.
There is no argument that animals should not be regarded as the property of humans. Anyone seriously interested in animal rights, animal liberation, or abolition of animal exploitation agrees that the legal property status of animals is ethically problematic.
Likewise, there is no argument that some so-called animal welfare legal measures do not actually reduce animal suffering. But, some probably do reduce suffering.
The debate is about the gray areas: the welfarist measures that seem to really help animals but don’t touch the property status of animals, lacto-ovo vegetarianism, and the promotion of “humane” products.
Below are the questions we must ask. Not only must we ask these questions, we must find the answers. Criticism is not enough; we must thoroughly investigate the issue:
- Do some welfarist measures, if enforced, actually reduce animal suffering?
- Does promoting welfarism make people more or less comfortable exploiting animals?
- Is the promotion of some welfarism actually vegan education in disguise?
- Is welfarism incrementalist abolition or is welfarism an obstacle to abolition? Is welfarism neither?
- Can we do both? That is, can some people do vegan education and some people promote welfarism without stepping on each others toes?
When we have real evidence, such as empirical data, we can make recommendations regarding the most effective ways to reach our goal of abolition of animal exploitation or a vegan utopia.
Wait a second, we do have some evidence that whatever we’ve been doing over the last ten years has been moving society in the right direction:
- “Meat reducers,” “semi-vegetarians,” vegetarians, and vegans are growing segments of consumers. source
- “A quarter of Americans say animals deserve the same rights as humans,” source
- “[Americans] have become less accepting of medical testing on animals, and the use of animal fur for clothing” source
- “Nearly one-quarter of Americans say that they sometimes go meatless at restaurants” source
- “10% of consumers say they largely follow vegetarian-inclined diets and 5% more are “definitely interested” in shifting to vegetarian-based diets in the future.” source
- “2008 per capita [meat] consumption stands to be at the lowest point in seven years” source
- “The [poultry] industry has never cut production to this degree before, but demand for chicken has never contracted to this degree either,” source
- “Fishermen are hurting and quitting the business” source
- “demand for dairy products is stalling” source
- “Consumers today are leery of the foods they find in the supermarket, afraid that the animals did not experience well-being.” source
- “almost all [Americans] agree that animals should be given some protection from harm and exploitation.” source
- “38% of Americans express support for the idea of banning horse and dog racing altogether” source
- “The USDA estimates show declines in red meat consumption.” source
- “Roughly one in eight adults (13%) is a ‘semi-vegetarian’ who currently eats meat with fewer than half of his or her meals.” source
- “Older consumers are more likely to be reducing meat as a component of moving toward a healthier diet.” source
- “Consumers are becoming increasingly conscious of ethical issues and skeptical of food safety.” source
Some of these trends are probably not related to actual animal rights activism. And some or all of these trends could simply be a fluke and not clearly related to our efforts. But the fact is, it’s false to claim that what we’ve been doing isn’t working. As someone who has been interested in animal issues for decades, I’ve seen changes occur. It’s slow, but it is progress. Something is working.
—
* The 3000 number comes from someone else that Francione asks. I’m guessing it’s 3000 animals saved over the vegan’s lifetime. And that’s an average. People who go vegan earlier in life save more animals than people who go vegan later in life. And of course, it should be pointed out that most of the animals won’t actually be “saved.” THat is, they won’t be going to sanctuaries rather than factory farms. Instead, the animals will be spared suffering and death because they won’t be brought into existence artificially through forced impregnation by breeders.
If abolition is the only option on the table it’ll fail, how do I know this, I know because it’s common sense and I have intuition, here’s how I get there, PETA, HSUS, smaller AR groups or individuals like myself all talk to the same people, people who have different personalities, some are ready to make smaller changes some are ready to make bigger changes.
I have spoken to some people some of whom have become vegetarian after talking to me , two previously vegetarian are now not eating ice cream, or cream cheese, now all these people are intelligent and understand the consequences of their personal choices, if I talked to them about abolition again they’d stop listening, I know this from my conversations with them, however through my example they’re eating less animal products, multiply that by the millions of vegetarians and that hurts the bottom line of animal exploitative corporate juggernauts the world over, those examples are victories for animals and for the vegetarians health.
Of the larger scale push for welfarism e.g. through PETA etc, I have heard many vegans say they are vegan because of PETA, as we all know PETA legislates for welfarism and abolition wherever it thinks it can succeed the most given the individual circumstances of each situation, some initiatives fail some succeed.
Abolition only initiatives inherently have nothing to fall back on, there is no plan ‘B’ after all it’s abolition or bust for them, if they say that’s not the case then they are welfarists, I’m abolitionist wherever I can influence it, I’m welfarist wherever I think that’s what will work, abolitionists say welfarists are inhibiting them, I say abolition only inhibits ARs.
PETA absolutely creates vegans: “Meet Your Meet” makes vegans, pure and simple.
Yes. And as I think you said in a previous post – the most important thing is for every one of us to at least do something instead of nothing. And in my opinion, Francione does next to nothing by spending so much time attacking the efforts of others instead of actually promoting veganism.
Matt, Heh, I wouldn’t as far as to say “Francione does next to nothing” but I agree that counter-intuitive criticism that lacks evidence isn’t generally productive.
Ever since your little blow up with Torres (which, though highly comical, drew a certain amount of attention), you’ve been milking this “welfarism vs. abolitionist” thing for all it might be worth, in an effort to drive up traffic to your site. It’s shameless. But nonetheless expected. However, I’m happy to discover that no one worth their salt is lowering their standards to debate with you here. You are left with the “meegans” (who apparently never learned in elementary school that there is such a thing as punctuation. Her sentences are so long they aren’t run-ons, they’re long distance marath-ons.).
The ultimate problem with your mental equipment is that you tend to skim information rather than give it a full reading. I’ve read your posts on other blogs – you don’t even bother to read the article that’s linked to the subject, much less give the subject any extended thought, before spouting off some weird shit that doesn’t make any sense. Gathering and disseminating figures and percentages from other sites and providing copious links is not the same as actually doing the proper in depth research or study needed to come to a logical conclusion. I’m not saying that every one who becomes vegan must read book after book about animal rights theory (though that would be nice). But for someone who smugly argues as if she has authority to speak on animal rights theory (or “vegan theory” as you call it – heh), you might want to retire this site for a while and hit the books. Because if you really have read books (thoroughly from beginning to end) on animal rights theory, then your interpretation/analysis of the subject is equivalent to deriving stick figures from studying Rembrandt or extracting “Dick and Jane” from reading James Joyce.
In short, you’re out of your league when you start spewing your severely undeveloped ideas about animal rights. When I read your blog or comments on other blogs I swear I hear air leaking. I used to feel bad for you and wondered why anyone seriously entrenched in AR would bother to give you a difficult time. But you keep *asking* to be ridiculed (!). At this point, you deserve any intellectual railing you receive. I have come here in the past because occasionally you provide a good link or video (like the one of T. Colin Campbell, which was excellent – did you watch more than 2 minutes of it?), but I’ve decided your side fluff is not worth my time. For someone who criticizes abolitionists for their criticism of welfarism, you’re doing your fair share of pointed criticism of abolitionism. It’s terrible that you would be hypocritical, but what’s more deplorable is that your hypocrisy is based mostly on the desire for higher numbers in web traffic.
Your jerry-rigged soapbox is not built of sturdy materials and collapses every time you stand on it. Time to step off and build a new one made of substance before you step back on. I’m sure there’s a library accessible in your neighborhood. Do yourself a favor and use it liberally.
If you are going to write about animal rights theory, be responsible in what you write and do your homework first. Then you will be equipped to make an informed decision (on welfarism vs. abolition vs. any other “isms”).
You might want to start with Francione’s and Torres’ books, since you insist on debating the subject of welfarism/abolition. I always read both sides of an issue, including the books written by those authors’ whose views I disagree with. You should, too, if you want to be taken seriously (and from what I have read of your words, you *DO*).
jeanie,
I’m saddened by your cynicism and offended by your personal attacks.
jeannie,
I don’t think you could possibly be more off base. The huge assumption behind your comment is that animal liberation is an intellectual field best pursued by reading theory books. According to you, this is an academic discipline subject to the same rules as a field like philosophy.
I can’t help but read your comment and think you live in a fantasy land. Animals are dying now. This is not about academic rigor. This is not about academic or intellectual anything, and if you think it is, I don’t think you are thinking clearly at all.
The goal is to make vegans. The goal is to shut down factory farming. The goal is to stop the systematic oppression and exploitation of non-human animals, and to do it ASAP. This fight will be accomplished “on the ground” so to speak.
The movement won’t be successful without a healthy helping of marketing. Marketing is not an intellectual pursuit. Its goal is to influence and persuade using any device available (or at least a wide array of devices), most of which wouldn’t pass academic muster.
I think Bob Torres does good for the animal liberation movement with his podcast. I think he does harm to the movement with his dogged insistence that we treat this issue as an academic one. He is an academic. He has that hammer, and everything looks like a nail to him.
I don’t think reading books by Francione or Torres makes anyone a more effective advocate for veganism. I think reading this website does. And that is the bottom line.
~ Recent blog post: Starting A Session The Right Way ~
One more thing.
Your above quote makes my point more clearly than my entire comment. You neatly wrap up everything you get totally wrong in two short sentences. Animal liberation is not a movement where only the well-punctuated are invited to participate.
Elitism, intellectual snobbery, and a dogmatic insistence upon academic rigor all have no place in the movement.
~ Recent blog post: Starting A Session The Right Way ~
Jeannie
First of all I didn’t attend elementary school, I attended primary school, then secondary school. I wasn’t schooled in America, I was schooled in London, England. It’s true that I use far too many commas and not enough full stops, (periods to you). It’s a style of punctuation I was taught many moons ago in what was called “comprehensive school”, and find it a little difficult shedding because I’m so used to it. Thanks for pointing it out. However it seems to me that aside from bashing my use of punctuation, I noticed a lack of constructive critisism relative to anything I said.
I really can’t help but see jeannie’s tirade as a reflection of a difference of opinion — which necessarily ought to be debated — irrationally turned into aggressive posturing and intellectual bullying. Mr. Torres has instigated this kind of response.
The original post did one thing: It challenged Prof. Francione’s premise that “welfare” reform isn’t correlated with the end of abolition. The foundational premises remain the same; the conclusions that follow are accepted by both sides.
But this one challenge engenders jeannie’s wrath. It’s Prof. Francione’s cult critique of PETA in reverse.
~ Recent blog post: Yet another hypocrisy in an outdated system ~
I just wanted to add my own 7 cents here. Perhaps a good way to refrain from future testing of hallucinogenic drugs on animals, would be to watch some of the “shower curtain backdrop” videos. It would not be a bad idea to add the one showing what vegans have in their refrigerator. I’m sure that there are many scientists who could learn much more from watching them (if they knew the “drug or drugs” involved) instead of subjecting animals to those tests. Just my own opinion.
Thank you,
-Pickles
Oh my God, Pickles, you caught me. I’m not perfect. I made vegan video blogs in my bathroom with a shower curtain backdrop because the 300 sq. foot NYC apartment I lived in at the time was too noisy elsewhere. Yet somehow the videos got thousands of views and 4 star ratings. You’re right, I should just stop now and forget using the web to help promote veganism. I’m too average and not smart enough to tell people to go vegan. I should pack up now and stop trying to save animals’ lives.
There are some ugly, nasty people in this movement. I suppose you find nasty people no matter what you do, but it still shocks me when I see vegans behaving so poorly toward other vegans.
This is disgusting. This behavior is disgusting, and Elaine doesn’t deserve it. If you can’t be constructive, please don’t participate here.
~ Recent blog post: Starting A Session The Right Way ~
So I listened to about the first 15 miutes of the Francione video. Around 12-13 minutes into it he relates a personal experience. He talks about some guard dogs that in his opinion could have been treated a little more caringly. Francione meets with the guard dogs owner and asks if the owner could provide some shelter and a few other things to make the lives of the guard dogs a little better, he says the dogs would prefer it.
What I don’t get is why he didn’t ask the owner to release the dogs immediately, after all he is anti welfarist, and an abolitionist. Why is it then, that welfarists that ask for something like California’s Prop 2, get bashed for essentially asking for the exact same help that Francione did in this example.
For all you Abolitionist is the only way to help non-humans, I look forward to your intelligent responses…Thanx.
In my experience working in an organic food co-op, there are plenty of people who simply adore exploiting animals now that they feel they can do it in an ethical way. I know tons of ex-vegetarians who feel fine about eating animal products that aren’t “factory farmed.” And there have been a rash of news stories in the past few years (if you listen to Vegan Freak Radio you will remember) about ex-vegans becoming butchers now that their meat is “well-sourced” and “humane.”
I don’t have any empirical proof either, but in my experience, happy meat turns people away from veganism. The average conscientious American cares about welfare (abolition has never even crossed their mind).
meegan,
He described that situation in order to explain how the property paradigm doesn’t make a difference in animals’ lives. He asked the man to provide them with more comfort, and the man declined saying something like they’re his dogs and he’ll do with them as he pleases.
I considered writing about that, too, because clearly Francione didn’t take advantage of the welfarist laws that might protect those dogs. One need only watch Animal Cops on Animal Planet to understand how welfarist laws can help animals, particularly cats and dogs. Owners don’t get to shirk their responsibility at every turn.
If I had seen junk yard dogs like Francione saw, I’d call Animal Control and file a complaint of neglect. Or, if I could catch them, I might take them myself like Tom Regan suggests.
In fact, one of my dogs, Bella, comes from a construction site/ empty lot where she’d been abandoned and/or neglected. The construction crew claimed she was their guard dog, but my husband and I disagreed. Now she’s our family member. See… there IS one good thing about the property paradigm: possession is 9/10th of the law. We got to keep Bella because the construction crew knew it was a losing battle and they gave up their fight with us; they didn’t have a leg to stand on.
(FYI, the other dog comes from the pound.)
Nick,
I don’t know a single ex-vegan or ex-vegetarian who cites that reason. The ones I know say “it was too hard” or “I didn’t get enough protein.” I will grant you that those people probably do exist, but I will not grant that they are the majority of non-vegans. Most non-vegans are utterly ignorant of factory farming. Anyone who has leafleted in a public place knows this to be true.
And as far as I remember, there was only one vegan butcher, but even if I’m wrong and there were a few of them, I’d be surprised if was really “a thing” or if it was just weird news. Weird news makes headlines because it’s weird, not because it’s part of a trend.
Nick,
You say:
“there are plenty of people who simply adore exploiting animals now that they feel they can do it in an ethical way”.
“Adore exploiting animals” & doing “it an an ethical way”, isn’t anything I personally have come across in anyone I know that eats cage free, or humanely sourced animal foods.
Humanely sourced or cage free has been around for centuries.
Anyone who eats that way now, is doing so because it eases their conscience a little, and they think it helps the animals. If factory farmed was their only choice, which in some locales is the only viable choice, unless they have access to farms etc, would just go ahead and eat what is easily available.
Vegetarians and conscientious omnis’ are potential vegans. It’s my personal mission to turn as many of them on to veganism through education and my example. At the same time I can also help regular omnis’ learn the truth about CAFOs and start them on the road to compassionate choices. It’s all about using as many resources, to reach as many people as possible, to hurt the botom line of as many animal exploitative businesse as we can.
For me the end goal of course is abolitionism. But there is no way I’m going to convince someone consuming animals 3 times a day that they should just “go vegan” – without exposing them to some of the “welfare” issues. I’ve had much more success in opening people’s awareness with incremental steps. In fact, those I’ve approached in full hearted vegan “all or nothing” gusto – didn’t budge an inch.
I’ve learned a lot from both GF and from Vegan Soapbox – On an academic forum Abolitionism makes total sense. But the real world isn’t going to change much unless we approach nonvegans with something they can do in their own daily life. Even if that something is only eliminating meat once a week. The point is, it’s a begining that at least keeps the conversation alive.
And lastly, it’s a shame about all the hostility about strategy – when there’s so much work to be done.
~ Recent blog post: Don’t be Fooled! All Meat = Harm * Deer, Dog or Cow * Go Vegan ~
Gary Francione already talks about asking omnivores, if they have a problem with being vegan immediately, to phase out animal products little by little, as long as the message is one of veganism and abolition. What he opposes is this notion that we should actively tell people to consume “humane” animal products, which is what people like Peter Singer and the folks running HSUS are doing.
It’s like a feminist telling men to only abuse women “humanely”, and to fail to mention that they should not be abused at all.
I bet that for every individual that becomes vegan because of welfarist activism, there are quite a bit *more* people who are becoming ex-vegans or who are even more deeply committed to the “happy meat” myth than ever before, because now all these multi-million-dollar animal rights groups say it’s OK.
Anyway, I like this video of Francione. His arguments are clear and make sense, unlike the off-base rantings of Elaine and her usual flock of followers.
I don’t have much time to talk right now, but are you including me in Elaines flock of followers?. If so let me set you straight, I don’t Follow anyone. I’m really very confident in my own self worth and beliefs. Are you one of Franciones flock.
L,
I agree with much of what Francione advocates. Here’s where we disagree: he advocated that people should vote NO on Prop 2. He didn’t just say abstain from voting and he didn’t say send the HSUS a letter, he said “vote no.” Prop 2 never advocated “humane meat.” Prop 2 simply banned battery cages, gestation crates, and other confinement devices that didn’t allow an animal to turn around or spread his or her limbs.
There is a world of difference between a) banning some cruelty and b) promoting some other cruelty. Francione acts like it’s all the same. To him, property status is property status and that’s that, no matter what. Well, it’s just not that simple.
You said “It’s like a feminist telling men to only abuse women ‘humanely’, and to fail to mention that they should not be abused at all.”
No, it’s not like that at all. It’s like looking at a population of people where women are sold as slaves and often chained and imposing a law that makes it illegal to chain women. The law doesn’t condone or condemn the slave trade, but it makes it harder. Moreover, the law encourages society to start viewing women as worthy of total freedom, not slavery.
PS – Did you notice in the video where Francione said he was against raising monetary damages for pet owners whose pets died due to negligent vets? He claims the reason he’s against it is not only because of his central thesis that welfarist laws entrench the property status of animals into the legal code further and make true abolition more difficult, which is highly debatable, but he also says that he thinks higher awards to pet owners/animal guardians would increase malpractice premiums and make it more difficult for vets to practice their trade. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, “tort reform.” What kind of lawyer is he? Is he really on our side? Maybe that’s just the liberal/progressive in me, but I found that comment of his unnerving. If someone negligently kills your kid, you’re often entitled to monetary damages. It’s an imperfect system, but it’s supposed to deter someone from being negligent with children, not to equate children with money. Lawyers working for the same thing for animal companions are being chided by Francione. Seems strange to me.
He also said he’s against pet trusts, which may or may not “entrench animals’ property status,” but definitely can save animals’ lives. Many animals who don’t have something like a trust set up for them after the death of their human guardians are “euthanized”!
Round and round we go. Until I see some evidence, I think this argument is silliness. I’d like to see some actual numbers on these apparently ubiquitous animal hating ex-vegans.
~ Recent blog post: Starting A Session The Right Way ~
@Ed – I never said that to be a vegan or to carry out effective vegan advocacy that one needs to read loads of books on animal rights theory. I said it would be nice (i.e., helpful), but not necessary.
What I DID say was that Elaine is milking this debate for what it is worth. Someone who writes a number of *pointed* blog entries about the welfarism/abolitionism debate should have a certain amount of knowledge under the belt regarding THEE subject – meaning the subject of animal rights (not just the subject of welfarism, or of abolitionism, or of utilitarianism, or of animal liberation (MDA)…). Meaning if one wants to talk “theory,” then one really ought to have read the books on the subject. Of course, reading the books doesn’t necessarily guarantee that one is going to come to a logical conclusion (not all minds works the same, thank goodness), but it would (in the least) hopefully allow one to bring something of worth to the table. When Elaine uses the word “rogue” to describe herself, I see it as her saying, “I’m not going to put the required time and energy into understanding the sh-t I write about.”
Your quote: “I don’t think reading books by Francione or Torres makes anyone a more effective advocate for veganism.”
No, I don’t think that one should JUST focus on theory. Not at all. But I think if someone has the balls to directly challenge a theory (such as Francione’s, though it could be anyone’s), please take the time to read the person’s works and put some original thought into the matter. Your type of attitude reminds me of Sarah Palin – this sort of attitude that to actually read books and have an intellectual thought is a form of elitism. Jesus, I mean really. How stupid does that sound? There are some people who actually put untold amounts of time into thinking about certain issues, and yes, they indeed have *special* in depth insight into a particular subject because they have put much time and energy into researching and thinking about the subject. Francione has paid his dues. And NO I’m not just a blind follower of Francione – I also read books by other animal rightists (Lee Hall, Tom Regan, etc.). I read papers written by various animal rightists on a regular basis. I read Roger Yates’ latest essay yesterday (which was excellent and enlightening) – he has invested significant time and energy into researching social movements (his area of expertise) and applying what he learns to animal rights. I read stupid sh-t like Erik Markus’ latest book, just in case I might learn something new (I didn’t). I even read the utter bullsh-t put forth by Stephen Best and Singer, so that I understand exactly where they are coming from in order to know precisely *WHY* I disagree with them and be able to argue against their ideas in a clear manner.
I think it’s just laziness. That’s what I think. People want to get up on their soapbox and say what they want to say without putting some time into thinking deeply about a subject. Shall I apologize if I research and actually think about a matter before I debate a subject or go volunteer somewhere or donate money to an organization or speak to someone regarding animal rights/veganism?!
Or shall we all toss books into the fire and rely on vague second hand sound bites of information (e.g., 99% of blogs) to understand the world around us.
@Meegan – You’re right. I wasn’t trying to impart any constructive criticism (any standard book on grammar will do the trick). And no, Ed, a person needn’t construct perfect sentences to participate in animal rights discussions. But it helps if the person makes an *effort*. And it doesn’t take having a PhD or a published book to carry out the act of reading and thinking before one decides to open one’s mouth.
ps – For the record, it was Lee Hall’s book that made me think about abolitionism a few years ago, not Francione’s or Torres’. I read their books much later, and they just gave me extra insight. I am not defending abolition or Torres in particular, though you people have easily and conveniently summed it up as that. I am defending the notion of substance in thought and debate.
pps – I am assuming, Ed, that you are Elaine’s husband. The notable poker player who writes BOOKS on the subject of playing poker. Why bother writing about the subject (offering tips, advice, strategies, etc.) if your words are not going to hone your reader’s skills when they sit at the poker table?! I’m sure any idiot can join in on a game of poker (just like any idiot can become a animal rights activist). But will the person play well if they have not studied the game? Probably not. Will they understand and employ the best tactics and strategies to gain the advantage over their opponent? The odds are against it. And won’t they play better and have that extra needed insight and edge and wisdom if they read your book (written by you, someone who has put considerable time and energy and years into studying the game and becoming an expert)? Well, animal rights is the same (only a tad more important because it involves 53 billion slaughtered animals each year). Before one goes out there and leaflets, talks to people, volunteers, donates, etc., etc., it’s a really good idea that one hones their ideas and skills by reading books on the subject written by people who are knowledgeable about the subject. You can agree or disagree with what you have read, but if you put the time and energy into it, either way you will have considerable insight into what you think is the best approach.
I don’t know how you can argue against it after putting it that way. So I’m done here and probably won’t be back. I am no doubt clapping with one hand. But I think *someone* needed to say it. In many ways, I find the Internet is destroying people’s ability (if they ever had it) to distinguish between opinion (secondhand knowledge, whether credible or fabricated) and original source. 99% of what people read on the web is opinion. Even shumucks like Karl Rove and Bill Kristol are allowed to write commentaries (propaganda) these days and undiscerning people read it thinking it is the work of journalists, which it is not (they are not journalists – they are part of the political think tank that ruined America – crooked politicians at best). They are not reporting the news or offering fresh new facts, just as most blogs do not. I spoke above of Roger Yates’ essay. It is obvious he put significant energy into writing it. I suspect he spent many hours of time doing research (reading books, talking to people, etc.). Take someone like Greg Palast, the investigative reporter. He does real research, too – he actually goes and digs up valuable information that is uncovered for the first time when he reports it. Someone who comments on the current events of today does not. Francione did real research. Bob Torres did real research. Elaine, you did/do not. You glean information off the internet. And then briefly comment on it. That’s what you do.
I could do the same. But I don’t. Because it would be rehash.
—-
“Do you ever read any of the books you burn?”
“I’m done here and probably won’t be back.”
I hope you keep your word. Your personal attacks are not welcome here.
jeannie,
I appreciate your more respectful tone in the followup comment.
I understand your point 100%, but I don’t agree with it. The movement needs salespeople more than it needs theorists. If you asked me, Ed, would you rather have 100 vegan activists who have never read a book leafleting, or 50 well-read theorists, I’ll take the 100 illiterate activists every time. (Using your poker analogy, I’d rather put my money on 50 well-read players over 100 randoms any day of the week. It’s the opposite conclusion.)
We need numbers pounding pavement. We need varied messages. We need smart people. We need dumb people. We need well-read and well-spoken people. We need people who have never read a book in their lives. We need NUMBERS and DIVERSITY in this movement. We need schmucks like Karl Rove and Bill Kristol fighting for the good guys. And we need Greg Palasts too.
This is my quarrel with you. I think you SHOULD do the same! It’s NOT rehash. It’s presence. Every vegan voice is important, even if we’re all repeating each other. 5000 vegan blogs are better than 100 vegan blogs, even if the extra 4900 are all basically “rehash” of the 100.
This is not an academic field. This is not about who published what first. It’s just not! It’s about spreading the word… one word, many voices.
Elaine encourages people to go vegan with her videos and her blogging. She does. People have told her as much. THAT’S WHAT COUNTS!!! Why some vegans feel they need to shower her with such vitriol when she’s out there every day promoting veganism… I just don’t understand.
~ Recent blog post: Starting A Session The Right Way ~
“5000 vegan blogs are better than 100 vegan blogs, even if the extra 4900 are all basically ‘rehash’ of the 100.”
I agree 100%.
P.S. I think the way you (and some others) have characterized what Elaine does is well out of sync with reality. The time, thought, and care Elaine puts into what she writes is evident to most people.
~ Recent blog post: Starting A Session The Right Way ~
Promoting modified exploitation (“welfarism”) will never lead to the end of exploitation (abolition). To say so is simply illogical. Nonhuman animals need us to speak our truth. Let us be their voice by promoting veganism, rights, and justice in our words and actions.
Two books that should be read by all animal rights advocates (for theory and practice):
- “Rain Without Thunder” by Gary Francione
http://www.amazon.com/Rain-Without-Thunder-Gary-Francione/dp/1566394619
- “Speciesism” by Joan Dunayer
http://www.amazon.com/Speciesism-Joan-Dunayer/dp/0970647565/
Before anyone thinks I don’t do anything other than sit on the Internet and reply to blog postings…
- I co-founded and help run a grassroots abolitionist group, the Carolina Vegan Association: http://www.carolinavegan.org/
- I created a Facebook group to promote animal rights from an abolitionist perspective: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4834647806
- I’ve personally handed out more than 10,000 “Why Vegan?” pamphlets to the public.
Jeannie,
Is this the best you could do.
“@Meegan – You’re right. I wasn’t trying to impart any constructive criticism (any standard book on grammar will do the trick”).
If that’s your best shot at a response, I get it, you don’t have anything of real depth to impart relevant to the subject at hand. You can write reams of tirades about Ed, Elaine, or the “Meegans” of the worlds blogs on Welfarism. However it all smacks of being peremptory, and is exactly what kids in a schoolyard use as tactics, it’s diversionary and empty in subject matter.
L. Cornwallis,
You said:
“What he opposes is this notion that we should actively tell people to consume “humane” animal products”
My response: Me Too!
You also said:
“I bet that for every individual that becomes vegan because of welfarist activism, there are quite a bit *more* people who are becoming ex-vegans or who are even more deeply committed to the “happy meat” myth than ever before, because now all these multi-million-dollar animal rights groups say it’s OK”.
My response:
What does becoming “ex-vegans” have to do with Welfarists, maybe jumping in at the deep end of Abolition is making them ex-vegans.
Even if someone has invested the last 40 years of their career and time learning and imparting their expertise on the subject of non-human abuse and comodification, if they say something I feel warrants an on point challenge, I’ll do just that. If someone for the first time in their life makes a statement that I disagree with, I’ll voice my rebuttal.
I agree wholeheartedly with Ed’s appraisal of the situation at hand, We need a particular critical mass of veg*ans for our voices to be heard and acted upon. Abolition is where we all want to be, however until there are enough votes for legislative change, it’s imperative that we encourage all people from all walks of life to get involved in the drive to cripple aggribusiness. Until then and beyond every burger that isn’t eaten counts, every blog that expresses disdain for carnal and bloody appetites counts, and every welfarist success makes a difference.
I have the ability to be Abolitionist, and Welfarist, at the same time.
Brandon Becker,
You commented:
“Promoting modified exploitation (”welfarism”) will never lead to the end of exploitation (abolition). To say so is simply illogical. Nonhuman animals need us to speak our truth. Let us be their voice by promoting veganism, rights, and justice in our words and actions”.
My response:
Promoting Abolition Only will never lead to the end of exploitation (abolition). To say so is simply illogical. Nonhuman animals need us to speak our truth. Let us be their voice by promoting veganism, rights, and justice in our words and actions.
Also thank you for the book recommendations, and all the tireless work you have put into AR
I just wanted to add that I think this blog site is one of the most thoughtful and helpful vegan resources I’ve ever seen. Thank you!
Don’t feed the trolls, people.
Elaine’s comment regarding the content of the Francione video pertained to a particular point:
“At 42 minutes in Gary Francione admits there is no empirical proof for his claim that “improving animal welfare makes people feel less uncomfortable about animal exploitation.” He asserts that his thesis is true because it’s “common sense and intuition.””
Elaine goes on to disagree with that claim, and presents figures that she argues support the idea that welfarist approaches have had successes. But in fact the evidence presented (some of which does and some of which doesn’t support the notion that compassion for animals has increased) doesn’t tell us anything about what has caused whatever changes in people’s views of animals there have been. It could well be that there would be a lot more people who ate less meat, were vegan, or otherwise evidenced greater concern for animals if a greater number of animal advocacy groups/individuals had taken an approach more in line with what Francione advocates. There just isn’t any evidence either that animal welfare reforms GENERALLY lead either more or fewer people to feel comfortable with consuming animal products (if produced “humanely”).
However, it is important to note that Francione presents abundant evidence (both here and in his written work) for his major point that the welfare reforms and reform movements that he discusses have not significantly improved the well-being of animals. Two examples that he gives are PETA’s campaign for McDonald’s to treat cattle more humanely and the anti-fur campaign.
And his main philosophical argument is that efforts to promote reforms in the treatment of animals do not in themselves say anything about whether it’s okay to exploit animals, to treat them as property, at all. If we want to make progress toward abolition of animal exploitation, then our efforts should primarily be geared toward advocacy for that goal, not toward promoting this or that piecemeal reform. Contrary to what some have argued in this forum, Francione has not argued that ALL efforts toward reforming the treatment of animals is counterproductive, nor does he advocate an approach to activism wherein we pressure people to go vegan overnight. He just says that promoting veganism and abolition of animal exploitation should be our primary focus in our activism.
One other point: although we cannot say for sure whether animal welfare reforms such as “more humane” slaughter, bigger cages, or whatever will make people on the whole more willing to keep eating animal products and less willing to go vegan, there is no doubt that this happens with some people. Producers of “happy meat” and “free range” or “organic” dairy and eggs would not be having the business successes they’re having if their products were not appealing to many people (including some former vegans–my ex-wife, for example!) who think of themselves as concerned about the well-being of animals. There ARE more than a few former vegans or former vegetarians, as well as people who become neither, out there, and there’s no good reason to doubt that the promotion of these sorts of products plays a role. I just came across this article today concerning former vegetarians and vegans who now run f-cking BUTCHER SHOPS:
http://www.gourmet.com/food/2009/04/vegetarian-butchers
The propaganda that there can be such a thing as “humane” use of animals as food sources DOES work. And the ONLY way we’re going to be able to successfully combat it is if we present a clear message that animal slavery is wrong, period. The US movement to abolish human slavery back in the 1800s didn’t go around promoting “more humane” treatment of slaves and pretending that that was the best way to promote complete abolition of slavery; they advocated abolition of slavery. And ultimately (human) slavery was completely abolished in the US as a result of this movement’s efforts. We would do well to follow in that movement’s footsteps and craft our message similarly.
Jeff, the human slavery analogy is not a good one because there are more slaves today than there were in the 1800s. And most aren’t “legal property” of their owners because the paper trail makes it harder to be a slaver owner when slavery has been outlawed everywhere.
As I wrote in my other post on this issue:
Jeff, you wrote: “[Francione's] main philosophical argument is that efforts to promote reforms in the treatment of animals do not in themselves say anything about whether it’s okay to exploit animals, to treat them as property, at all. If we want to make progress toward abolition of animal exploitation, then our efforts should primarily be geared toward advocacy for that goal, not toward promoting this or that piecemeal reform.”
I am not arguing for welfarism. I am arguing that welfarist measures, with abolitionist goals, are worth consideration. Specifically, I said:
I will not promote “happy” meat. However, I’m going to focus my energy more on factory farming than on small, “happy” meat farms. Same goes for animal companions. I’ll focus more on puppymills than on small, so-called “responsible” breeders. I’m going for the big guys, the ones who do the most harm. I’m building public support for animal causes and I’m encouraging socially accepted empathy for animals.
I agree that reforms in the treatment do not in themselves say anything about exploitation. However, law is one thing, the social consciousness is another. When people promote basic welfarist reforms, particularly the kind that condemn certain cruelties but don’t necessarily condone others, we educate the public about those cruelties. And even if we don’t explicitly suggest veganism, we provide a social climate that encourages people to think about the ‘face on their plate.’ People who think more about farm animals – even in the context of welfarism – think more about veganism. It just happens.
Do you really think most Californians understood how cruel factory farming was before Prop 2? Do you really think the Prop 2 campaigners who went vegan during the campaign thought their efforts were worthless? Do you really think public empathy for farm animals hasn’t increased in the last ten years? I think it has.
Jeff
I read through your post 2-3 times, it was obviously well thought through. After thinking about your various points I think you’re misguided in you’re reasoning. If you, Francione, or any other Aboltionist thinks that PETA is doing a lousy and innefective job in bringing an end to animal suffering, call them, e-mail them, petition them, create a movement to make them change their minds, then let me know how that works for you. I’m guessing you’ll get nowhere, they are going to do what they are going to do, and no amount of Abolitionists are going to make them change.
As for the vegan/AR blogs, vlogs, websites, forums, and individuals, that span this globe, there are a countless number of differing opinions amongst them, everyone has their own view as to how this should be handled. We talk back and forth about the Abolition only credo as the answer, and that Welfarism is stalling real reform by the Abolitionist movement, and that it might be keeping omni’s in la la land concerning the property status of animals. Did you notice that those who believe in welfarist reforms as part of the fight against animal abuse haven’t changed their views.
I’ve had many discussions with many Welfarists and Abolitionsts, and generally speaking most stick to their opinions. I’d say pick an organization, or create one of your own and do what you feel is best. Support Abolition when you feel it’ll be beneficial, and support Welfarism where you can see it’ll be beneficial, especially where you can see there is no chance of Abolition not making any headway.
I’m not a cookie cutter kind of person, I don’t fit in either camp exclusively, some would like me to think it’s their way or the highway, but I see a third approach, one where Welfarism and Abolition can work side by side, taking the approaches that fit best, based on each situations own likelihood of success.
Elaine wrote:
“I am not arguing for welfarism. I am arguing that welfarist measures, with abolitionist goals, are worth consideration.”
Francione has argued that as well.
Next part:
“Specifically, I said:
there is no argument that some so-called animal welfare legal measures do not actually reduce animal suffering. But, some probably do reduce suffering.
The debate is about the gray areas: the welfarist measures that seem to really help animals but don’t touch the property status of animals, lacto-ovo vegetarianism, and the promotion of “humane” products.
I will not promote “happy” meat.”
I wouldn’t expect you to, but the point is that PETA and HSUS and many of the mainstream “animal rights” organizations do (or at least are inconsistent about it), and to the extent that they do, it’s counterproductive. Public statements (see http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1009.htm) about what a great thing Whole Foods is doing by promoting “happy meat,” the campaign to get KFC Canada to kill the chickens a different way and implying that KFC was doing some great thing by going along with it, etc., is horsesh-t. It undermines the cause of animal rights by implying that there’s nothing wrong with a marginally kinder, gentler version of the torture and early death that’s the lot of farm animals. Whether or not there is progress being made in terms of public consciousness, it’s in spite of rather than because of actions such as these.
Elaine wrote: “Jeff, the human slavery analogy is not a good one because there are more slaves today than there were in the 1800s.”
The fact that human slavery still exists today is not relevant to my point. As long as we live in a corrupt, profit-driven world, human trafficking is likely to continue. That has nothing to do with the point of my analogy. The US abolitionist movement DID succeed in freeing African-Americans from slavery; not only are no African-Americans slaves, we have an African-American President. Partial as it is, there has been progress both in the actual situation and in society’s perception of slavery.
At the time of the abolitionist movement, the cultural climate was that a great many people thought there was nothing wrong with slavery, and the aim of the abolitionists was to convince enough people that slavery was utterly immoral that it could be abolished. Thus, their focus was on the end of slavery, period, not this or that reform of the institution of slavery. It was only in this manner that a societal transformation occurred in which slavery became a totally unacceptable practice in the minds of the vast majority of Americans. Right now, enslavement of nonhuman animals is acceptable to most Americans. That perception needs to be challenged directly as much as possible, and the big organizations like PETA and HSUS are not focused on doing that.
That, and a horrific, protracted four-year-long war.
~ Recent blog post: Announcing: Small Stakes No Limit Hold’em – The Affordable Poker eBook ~
“The fact that human slavery still exists today is not relevant to my point.”
It’s 100% relevant. When we focus on the abolition of animal’s property status, that’s probably what we’ll get eventually. But that’s all we’ll get. And it could end up worse than before, as it has now in the case of human slavery.
Animal exploitation will continue regardless of the law because humans have complete domination over most nonhumans. We don’t get to just excuse it and do nothing by saying “we live in a corrupt, profit-driven world.” No, we have to figure out the best way to overcome the corruption, greed, and domination.
Elaine said:
“Jeff said: ‘The fact that human slavery still exists today is not relevant to my point.’
It’s 100% relevant.”
It’s 0% relevant. The enslavement of African-Americans in the United States was completely abolished, primarily through the actions of a movement whose main message was that “slavery is a moral abomination and needs to be abolished,” not “let’s improve the welfare of slaves by giving them bigger quarters.” We will never achieve a society in which animals are not enslaved and murdered unless we likewise make “enslavement and murder of animals is wrong and should be abolished” our main message, rather than “let’s give animals bigger cages,” “let’s kill animals more ‘humanely’,” and the like.
“And it could end up worse than before, as it has now in the case of human slavery.”
It’s not worse than before. Millions of people were slaves in the US in the mid-1800s. That is not at all true today. Even when examined worldwide, there is a much smaller percentage of the population who are enslaved today than was the case in the 1800s.
“Animal exploitation will continue regardless of the law because humans have complete domination over most nonhumans. We don’t get to just excuse it and do nothing by saying ‘we live in a corrupt, profit-driven world.’”
WHAT?? It’s a FACT that we live in a corrupt, profit-driven world. NOBODY on this forum has ever excused it or advocating doing nothing. How DARE you suggest that.
“No, we have to figure out the best way to overcome the corruption, greed, and domination.”
Yup, as I’ve said before, we have to abolish our profit-driven economy in which most wealth is controlled by a tiny minority of the world’s population if we’re going to have a hope of truly abolishing (human or non-human) slavery or any other major social ill. On the way to building a movement that can accomplish that, part of the task of those concerned with justice for both human and non-human animals is to tell the truth about what’s being done to the latter and advocate veganism as much as we can.
Ed said:
“Jeff said: ‘It was only in this manner that a societal transformation occurred in which slavery became a totally unacceptable practice in the minds of the vast majority of Americans.’
That, and a horrific, protracted four-year-long war.”
True, but irrelevant. The abolitionist movement didn’t start the Civil War; the US government–which was not morally opposed either to slavery or to mass violence that victimized large numbers of innocent people–did.
Again, my whole point in making the comparison of the animal rights movement with the anti-slavery movement is simply to say that, just as enlightening the public as to the immorality of human slavery and advocating its abolition was the major task of that movement, enlightening the present-day public about the enslavement and murder of animals and advocating the abolition of this treatment of animals should be the major task of the animal rights movement. (Why call it an animal rights movement if it isn’t, in fact, a movement whose central task is to assert that humans should not enslave, torture, and murder animals?) Neither the fact that there are still several million slaves in the world nor the fact that the US Civil War, like all wars, was an incredibly violent affair have anything to do with this point at all.
Jeff,
There is much we agree about. Peruse this website and you’ll see NO promotion of happy meat. You will see LOTS of vegan education and promotion of veganism. Regardless of whether or not you think I have the correct mental state about the most effective form of animal advocacy, the FACT is, I am DOING what you’re suggesting I do.
Now, let’s look at Francione. He told people to vote NO on Prop 2 in order to send the HSUS a message that they should spend money on vegan education rather than promoting welfarist measures. Do you really think the HSUS would interpret NO votes the way Francione intended? Do you really see Prop 2 as narrowly as he saw it, that is, NOT as an opportunity for vegans to push the envelope and promote veganism? Do you really think the best use of abolitionist’s time and money is to try to change the HSUS and PETA?
Here’s how I see it: We are individuals capable of deciding what to support and what not to support. We can’t control PETA or the HSUS any more than we can control the AKC or the FDA or the USDA. So we work around them, reframing and refocusing their messages in order to help animals, people, and the planet. When the HSUS says “vote yes on Prop 2″ we say “Vote yes, but do more: go vegan!” Or, if you really can’t support stuff like Prop 2, you say, “Do better than Prop 2, go vegan.”
Because as soon as you say “vote no” you just confuse the public with counter-intuitive logic and you lose their support and attention. You come off just like PETA does when they “euthanize” animals – a hypocrite. To most people, anything that appears to help animals is just that, helping animals. When you tell them to condemn welfarism, they interpret that as harming animals. People simply do NOT understand that ~A =/= B. When you condemn welfarism, they see that as condoning abuse.
There is a place for counter-intuitive logic, but human beings are NOT generally critical thinkers. We have to work with what we’ve got and move people in the right direction without making it too hard, too soon. We simply can’t expect people who fall for every fallacy in the book (evidenced by McDonald’s and Burger King commercials) to suddenly understand, appreciate, and adopt counter-intuitive logic. It’s unreasonable and ineffective.
So I finally watched the Francione video. At some point late into the video GLF proposes veganism as the catalyst that can bring property status to non-humans, and therefore the recognition and adoption of Abolition, relevant to non humans. The former is my paraphrasing of his thinking.
I’m not going to do a point by point rebuttal of his reasonings on the various issues, some of which I agree with, however I do want to address his offering of veganism as the productive way forward, while dropping welfarist efforts.
Veganism is a great way to make forward progress in the abolition of non-human abuse. It isn’t the only way forward, if it were the only tool that we as vegans employed we would never succeed in our efforts to break the mold of property status assigned to the other sentient beings of this planet. Vegetarianism, welfarist reform, anti vivisection legislation, health benefits of reduction of animal tissue/muscle for the omnivorous, environmental improvement, alternatives to protein from meat, the spiritual awakening of the thinking behind eating our animal citizens, are some of the other means at our disposal that will eventually, generally, lead to their freedom.
GLF, doesn’t see a paradigm shift in the abolition of non-human property status in our lifetime, me neither, I’d go even further by saying, we will never see the entire population of the planet unanimously abolishing all use and abuse of non-humans. By way of an example, think about all the different countries that see animals differently than the US does, horses are considered a delicacy in France, dogs are viewed as food for consumption in china, bushmeat is big business in some African regions.
There is so much more to say on the subject of tactical maneuvering within the ARs realm. However the best use of our resources is that which will increase the numbers necessary at the fastest pace possible, to achieve legislation and a mindset that will result in animal liberation sooner rather than later, as in the Abolition Only Mantra espoused by the fundamentalist movement of Abolitionist proponents.
This debate will rage on as the compassionate and passionate blaze the trail to animal freedom. My role will be to educate not only those on the sidelines but also those in the thick of the fray.
You might be interested in this blog post with some relevance to animal rights and human obligation to consider the welfare of domestic animals.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/04/what-are-animal-rights-the-vegan-peace-declaration/#comment-42861
Thanx Matt, it’s been added to my ever accumulating list of blogs I’m reading…if you have any other similar themed links, please let us know
Haha, suohdln’t you be charging for that kind of knowledge?!