Tag Archives: Tactics

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Can You Read Yourself Vegan?

The processes of persuasion and behavioral change are complex. Social psychologists recognize that information can influence us differently depending on the channel of dissemination. The Nonhuman Animal rights movement relies quite heavily on text-based literature to promote pro-social attitudes regarding other animals. But, can you really read yourself vegan?

Veganism’s Historical Reading Agenda

In The Gospel of Kindness (2016), Janet Davis notes the movement’s shift to a humane education campaign. This strategy reflected the great improvements in literacy and printing technology. Organizations pumped schools, church groups, and community centers full of pro-animal books, teaching plans, trained speakers, and youth humane clubs.

Similarly, the movement also relied on the greatly popular books, Black Beauty and Beautiful Joe (1893). These books documented the variety of cruelties and injustices imposed on Nonhuman Animals. They also demonstrated the redemptive power of kindness and empathy. Movement historian Diane Beers notes that welfare organizations purchased millions of copies of these books for free dispersal.

Reading and Persuasion

Scientists are now seeking to measure the behavioral impact of texts that are intended to mobilize. For instance, one study on the impact of Michael Pollan’s work on university students found that, first, students experienced a sharp increase in food justice knowledge, but, second, any corresponding behavioral changes were minimal. Furthermore, researchers followed up on participants a year later and found that most changes had disappeared (Hormes et al. 2013).

Likewise, Malecki et al. (2018) examined the impact of animal welfare narratives on high school students in Poland and Italy. Attitudinal changes were only really observable for about a week after having read the novels used in the study. Additionally, no immediate behavioral changes were observed (for instance, the students were no more motivated to donate to a charity).

 

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Narratives about animal welfare can increase pro-animal attitudes
  • Narratives have shortlived impacts
  • Narratives must be consistently applied to maintain effect

References

Beers, D. 2006. For the Prevention of Cruelty: The History and Legacy of Animal Rights Activism in the United States. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

Davis, J. 2016. The Gospel of Kindness. New York, NY: Oxford.

Hormes, J., P. Rozin, M. Green, and K. Fincher. 2013. “Reading a Book Can Change Your Mind, but Only Some Changes Last for a Year.” Frontiers in Psychology 4 (778).

Malecki, W., B. Pawlowski, M. Cieńskia,  and P. Sorokowski. 2018. “Can Fiction Make Us Kinder to Other Species?Poetics 66: 54-63.

Saunders, M. 1893. Beautiful Joe. Philadelphia, PA: The Griffith and Rowland Press.

Sewell, A. 1877. Black Beauty. London: Jarrold and Sons.


Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Can You Read Yourself Vegan?

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Variety

Unfamiliarity with new foods can be a major barrier to successfully promoting veganism, but this is an easy enough fix. One study found that non-vegans who were repeatedly exposed to vegan alternatives to “meat” began to view them more favorably (Hoek et al. 2013). This is consistent with the mere exposure effect, a psychological response that surfaces when an audience is exposed to something many times over. Eventually, the audience will grow more comfortable with that something and form positive associations with it.

However, participants in this study also reported boredom with the three products repeatedly used by researchers, indicating the importance of variety. Indeed, the human brain is programmed to respond to novelty (Gallagher 2011). Activists could, therefore, increase persuasion by emphasizing the variety of vegan foods and recipes available. Stereotypes about tofu, twigs, and leaves will need to be challenged. Activists might also cue novelty by introducing provocative anti-speciesist theory, as this is not something many have had a chance to consider before.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Expose audiences to vegan foods to increase familiarity and liking
  • Try to include a variety of vegan foods to peak interest and avoid boredom

References

Gallagher, W. New: Understanding Our Need for Novelty and Change. New York, NY: The Penguin Press.

Hoek, A. et al. 2013. “Are Meat Substitutes Liked Better Over Time? A Repeated In-home Use Test with Meat Substitutes or Meat in Meals.” Food Quality and Preference 28(1): 253-263.

 


Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Part of this essay was originally published by VegFund on May 7, 2013.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Variety

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology – Do-Gooder Derogation

 

 

One of the most important factors to going and staying vegan is a supportive network (Cherry 2006). Unfortunately, complicating this is a tendency for vegans to be perceived as “thinking they’re better than everyone else.” This chastising of morally-motivated individuals is something social psychologists have termed “do-gooder derogation.”

However, research shows that individuals who feel threatened will be more open if they are given the opportunity to combat the perceived moral threat (Minson and Monin 2011). Discussing veganism with friends and family members, even if that discussion becomes uncomfortable, could actually reduce their need to bolster non-vegan attitudes.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Give others a chance to express their discomfort with your moral choices
  • An open dialogue may reduce negative attitudes

References

Cherry, E. 2006. “Veganism as a Cultural Movement: A Relational Approach.” Social Movement Studies 5(2): 155-170. Gallagher, W. 2011. New: Understanding Our Need for Novelty and Change. Penguin Press.

Minson, J. and B. Monin. 2011. “Do-Gooder Derogation: Disparaging Morally-Motivated Minorities To Defuse Anticipated Reproach.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 3(2): 200-207.

 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.


This post was originally published by VegFund on May 7, 2013.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology – Do-Gooder Derogation

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Scripting

Effective persuasion necessitates that activists carefully direct desired behavior change. For vegans, what this means is that telling people to “Go Vegan!” is not sufficient, because it is not self-evident what going vegan entails. Veganism still appears a daunting task to most.

There are many reasons for this. First, veganism is still deviant and statistically uncommon in the West, and mainstream media represents it negatively (Cole and Morgan 2011). Second, professionalized animal welfare organizations (such as Vegan Outreach) dedicate a significant portion of their efforts painting veganism as difficult and unrealistic. As a result, individuals are getting negative messages about veganism from both sides, making the transition to veganism a confusing one and persuasion unlikely.

Simply demanding people go vegan is not enough, but scripting veganism can definitely improve results. According to social psychological research, the critical moves of behavior change should be clearly laid out and unambiguous (Heath and Heath 2010). The many changes necessitated to go vegan should be broken down into small changes so that it does not appear daunting and undermine motivation.

Meatless Mondays and vegetarianism are not recommended for inclusion in vegan scripts. The key is to script one big change into smaller changes, and this does not necessitate compromising ethics. It is common for professionalized nonprofits to employ flexitarian models with the justification that small steps are necessary, however, these organizations rarely promote veganism as an end goal. Their decision to promote small changes is based on their requirement to secure large grants and donations from elites, many of whom are threatened by veganism or anti-speciesism.

Activists can employ scripting to promote veganism without having to compromise. Consider the following script, which assumes moderate levels of accessibility. This would need to be tailored to low-income communities, cultural enclaves, or communities living in food deserts. Scripting should be tailored to suit the socioeconomic status and structural opportunities available to a given audience.

  1. State clearly to your family and friends you that you will be going vegan. Making a clear commitment will motivate and sustain your decision. It will also alert your support system, encouraging them to be respectful and helpful.
  2. Buy or borrow a few books on vegan ethics, vegan health, and vegan cooking.
  3. Locate a list of common animal ingredients to avoid and keep it handy.
  4. If you have a smartphone, download vegan apps to help with ingredient checking.
  5. Remove all nonvegan food items (flesh, milk, eggs, cheese, butter, honey, and all processed foods that contain these ingredients or other ingredients like gelatin, whey, datum, etc.) from your home and workstation.
  6. Create a grocery list and replace pantry with staples (use beginner’s vegan cookbooks to guide this process). Consider buying vegan analogs like veggie burgers to ease the transition. They are especially useful for busy lifestyles or for people with limited cooking skills.
  7. Get familiar with vegan fast food options in your area for times when you don’t have time to cook (websites and smartphone apps are available to help with this). While you’re at it, look up vegan-catering restaurants and natural grocers in your area. Keep your pantry stocked with vegan snacks for times when you’re in a rush.
  8. Devise a plan for parties, holiday dinners, and other social gatherings that are not likely to have vegan options (bring your own food or make a special request ahead of time, the same goes for air travel).
  9. Purchase new shoes, belts, jackets, and wallets to replace any nonvegan items you may have that are made of leather, wool, silk, fur, down, or suede (hard to find items can be found in online vegan shops).
  10. Replace your soap, shampoo, toothpaste, laundry detergent, cleaning supplies, and other bath and body products with vegan alternatives.
  11. Join a local vegan group and/or an online community for support.
  12. Subscribe to some vegan food blogs for inspiration.
  13. Try one new vegan recipe each week.
  14. Purchase a vegan multivitamin (with B12), vegan Vitamin D3, and vegan Omega-3s (all available from natural grocers, online vegan stores, or online discount vitamin suppliers)
  15. Donate or trash any remaining products made from nonhuman animal products.

For those with the means to do so, this list can be tackled in a few days. For others who might be overwhelmed with the transition or who may have limited income, this script can be staggered over a few weeks or months.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Provide very clear steps for going vegan
  • Make sure steps towards veganism are manageable
  • Tailor script for each community

References

Cole, M. and K. Morgan. 2011. “Vegaphobia: Derogatory Discourses of Veganism and the Reproduction of Speciesism in UK National Newspapers.” The British Journal of Sociology 62 (1): 134-153.

Heath, C. and D. Heath. 2010. Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

 

This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.


Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights. Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Scripting

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Meaningful Moments

Remembering Meaningful Moments

The human brain must filter and interpret massive amounts of information across its lifespan. Of course, not everything lasts in storage. It will usually be those moments that were especially memorable in their distinction that stick around.

For this reason, we are more likely to remember especially exciting or unique points in our life. These might include births, marriages, graduations, vacations and so on. A child might not remember what they did on a given day from their summer vacation, but they will surely remember visiting Disneyland and meeting Mickey Mouse. Indeed, Disneyland consciously manipulates the visitor experience to maximize positive memory-making.

Making Memories to Maximize Impact

Social psychologists Heath & Heath (2017) emphasize that meaningful moments do not just “happen.” They can be created. Because social movements rely on the manipulation of audience awareness, it behooves activists to understand how to create the biggest impact. This is especially important in the highly competitive and fast-paced media landscape in which a movement’s message is easily overlooked or outpaced.

Social change activists can easily tap into the psychological tendency to remember meaningful moments by working to create experiences that stand out from the regular operations of day-to-day life. Street protests, disruptions, and marches, for instance, can create meaningful moments. Meeting other animals in sanctuaries can also create meaningful moments.

Leafletters hanging out vegetarian pamphlets to students rushing between classes might be able to hit larger audiences, but these students are used to being leafletted every day and this interaction is not likely to be very memorable.

What about Negative Memories?

Meaningful moments are not always positive. If someone steals your wallet, you are likely to be more cautious with your wallet in the future. If you were bitten by a dog, the potential dangerousness of dogs will likely be the key attribute remembered. Folks living with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) also serve as evidence to the lasting impact of negative memories.

This is why some vegans cite a particularly memorable moment as the catalyst for their move toward a plant-based lifestyle. However, vegan campaigners should be careful about creating negative memorable moments, as a negative association with veganism could alienate audiences. Audiences can also employ psychological blocks to avoid having to cope with unpleasant information.

For the Activist Toolbelt

  • Create meaningful moments to have lasting impact on memory
  • Avoid run-of-the-mill interactions and campaigns that blend into the status quo
  • Creating negative memories is not advised

Works Cited

Heath, C. and Heath, D. 2017. The Power of Moments: Why Certain Experiences Have Extraordinary Impact. Simon & Schuster.

 


Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights. Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Meaningful Moments

Filed under Essays

Are Vegans too Open to Free-Riders?

In an interview with The Atlantic, I present the compelling findings from my publication, “Free-Riders in the Nonprofit Industrial Complex: The Problem of Flexitarianism.” In a meta-analysis of over 40 peer-reviewed journal articles on vegan motivation and consumer persuasion, I find that the pragmatic “reducitarian” approach to veganism and animal liberation that is promoted by nonprofits in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement lacks empirical support.

The Atlantic also interviewed Gene Baur of Farm Sanctuary to gauge the nonprofit perspective on the utility of flexitarian campaigning. Baur insists that incrementalism works, yet, typical of animal charities, offers no compelling evidence to support such a claim. Given the overall increase in “meat” consumption and persistent stagnancy in vegan numbers, his claim is especially suspect. Indeed, Baur points to the 2008 dip in “meat” consumption as an example of successful incrementalism, making the unscientific leap that this temporary decline was due to a Farm Sanctuary campaign and not the historic economic recession. “Meat” consumption in 2018, incidentally, hit a record high in 2018.

Other vegan activists interviewed in the article insist that flexitarianism remains an important tool for reaching a public uninterested in animal liberation who may be swayed instead by appeals to health and environmental sustainability. However, as I emphasize in my research, this “common sense” perspective lacks evidence. Most vegans go vegan out of altruistic concern for other animals, not health or environmental concerns. And more importantly, for those who are not interested in veganism at all, the research indicates that flexitarians, in general, do not substantially cut back on their consumption of animal products. Some even consume more animal products than someone who does not identify as a flexitarian.

In other words, folks are being encouraged by the Nonhuman Animal rights movement (Farm Sanctuary included) to adopt the flexitarian identity, even though this approach has not been proven to convert new vegans or significantly reduce consumption of animal products.

I emphasize that this free-riding (adopting the prosocial identity without changing behavior) is intentionally cultivated by movement elites such as Baur. This is because disinvested pseudo-members provide an illusion of mass support without charities having to share movement power democratically. Why do nonprofits do this? They are beholden to the state and elite-run foundations, both of which have a vested interest in the maintenance of speciesism.

 

Read my interview with The Atlantic here.
Read the original article, “Free-Riders in the Nonprofit Industrial Complex,” here.
Read a summary of the article here.


Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights. Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Comments Off on Are Vegans too Open to Free-Riders?

Filed under Interviews

Can Flexitarianism Facilitate a Vegan World? Research Suggests Another Agenda

Can flexitarianism build a vegan world? In a meta-analysis of dozens of articles on vegan motivation, flexitarian dietary patterns, and consumer psychology, I conclude that the ideology of semi-vegetarianism promoted by the vegan/Nonhuman Animal rights movement is not supported by evidence.

Research does not support that flexitarianism facilitates meaningful change, but it does support a conservative movement culture that is conducive to industry, state, and elite interests. Activists frequently default to “common sense” mantras of “pragmatism” promoted by movement elites when deliberating strategy, but movement success will ultimately rely on objective analysis of social change processes independent of bureaucratic, institutional, ideological, or celebrity hearsay.

Research supports that most people who go vegan and stay vegan do so out of concern for Nonhuman Animals. Nonprofits, however, often focus on the health benefits of veganism. This is not supported by the research as a major motivator for behavior change. Nonprofits focus on health because it is less political and threatening than the idea of animal liberation.

Nonprofits mask this rationale by claiming that folks operate on self-interest and are more likely to be swayed by appeals to their own health. Research does not support this. Humans are more likely to be motivated by compassion and altruism when it comes to relations with other animals. Therefore, by promoting veganism as a moral obligation, nonprofits would be far more likely to affect change.

The Free-Rider Problem

In my body of research, I have suggested that nonprofits intentionally engage strategic blunders because nonprofit goals are generally distinct from radical social change goals. Could the vegan/Nonhuman Animal rights movement also be intentionally alienating the public from veganism even though veganism is an unavoidable necessity to end speciesism? I think so.

Historically, social movements have had to grapple with the problem of motivating people to participate. This is a problem because, theoretically, a rationally acting individual is more likely to want to sit on the sidelines and let someone else do the risky and costly work of activism. Activism can entail social stigma, risk of arrest, and career damage. It could even simply turn off folks who do not want to be bothered with crowds, bad weather, walking, calling up politicians, etc. If someone else is willing to do that work, why not just leave it up to them?

As one means of overcoming free-riding, collectives have begun to professionalize to ensure a dedicated cadre of activists working full time on a given social problem. Since the late 20th century, movements have taken on a bureaucratic, corporate form which allows them more stability and state support at the cost of their radical politics. Industries working in tandem with the state now funnel money into nonprofits as a means of soft control. Radical politics, as a result, are simply starved while moderates are glutted. What I suspect is that social movements today are actually encouraging free-riding in order to maintain control over movement organizations and the social movement arena itself. In effect, they are helping industries and the state to neutralize and deradicalize politics.

If a movement can facilitate a public that supports its cause but is not encouraged to actually participate beyond donating intermittently, this manufactured free-riding strips the democratic essence of a movement and ultimately weakens it. Movement organizations that use this strategy can expect institutional longevity, but the ability to create meaningful social change with power centralized in this way is stifled.

Why Unstructured Incrementalism is Less Effective 

These structural influences shape a social movement’s claimsmaking. The Nonhuman Animal rights movement’s leading nonprofits mask their allegiance to conservative cash flow by making appeals to common sense notions of behavior change. Rather than asking someone to make the big leap to veganism, nonprofits insist, ask them instead to make a few changes and ease their way into it. However, social psychological research has demonstrated time and time again that “common sense” explanations are frequently misleading. Humans are far less rational than we think we are.

Although the United States is a country with major economic, political, and social ties to exploiting Nonhuman Animals, values of freedom, fairness, and compassion mean that few Americans want to see themselves as someone who is cruel to other animals. Flexitarianism, then, is a form of incrementalism that allows people to keep participating in exploitative behaviors as the system encourages them to do, while also enacting deeply held values about compassion. America is a country of animal lovers who want to keep eating animals—charities can appeal to this cognitive dissonance by promising folks that they can identify as an animal lover without having to make any real behavior changes. This is the very definition of a free-rider.

In “Free-Riders in the Nonprofit Industrial Complex: The Problem of Flexitarianism” published in Society & Animals, I have explored dozens of studies on vegan motivation and consumption change. In many cases, those eating flexitarian are not really eating any less animal products and they are less committed, more likely to exhibit characteristics of eating disorders, and sometimes actually eat more animals than people who did not identify as flexitarian.

Other research finds that participants asked to eat prescribed diets of omnivorism, flexitarianism, and veganism experienced similar levels of satisfaction and adherence to the diet—so why not go for the gold and ask folks to go vegan? After all, veganism has a bigger impact on the well-being of both Nonhuman Animals and humans.

The research, in short, does not support that asking folks to go vegan repels them, but the movement repeatedly assures activists that it will. Something else is fueling this rationalization since the evidence explored in my meta-analysis is not lining up.

Evidence to the Utility of Vegan Campaigning

Some research from tobacco cessation programs supports the importance of being straightforward and honest about the desired change. Participants in some studies, for instance, who were asked to quit immediately were more successful than those asked only to cut back. Furthermore, participants who were given a scheduled means of reducing toward cessation were successful, too, since behavior change can be cognitively straining. Vegan organizations, however, are more likely to promote vague ideas about cutting back and never mention the word veganism.

Tobacco cessation research supports that either asking folks to quit altogether or providing them a clear plan towards a clear goal is effective, but Nonhuman Animal charities do neither. The reason for this is that nonprofits—as businesses–are ultimately more interested in financial stability and institutional survival than they are interested in actual social change. This is a basic sociological observation found across many industry sectors.

So long as nonprofits are beholden to foundations and the state for support, it is unlikely that vegan programming will ever be designed according to evidence-based scientific research. This is because the nonprofit goal is to promote generic, promotable social services for the purpose of ensuring its survival, not to promote radical social change which would threaten the elite-run foundations, the state, and the nonprofits themselves. Promoting flexitarianism allows the charity to appear to be doing good works without really mobilizing any radical change.

The Imperative of Critical Thinking and Scientific Accountability

Nonprofits with a genuine interest in creating a vegan world will need to reconsider the role of the public in pushing for change. Relying on foundations and the state for financial support creates an inherent conflict of interest. These organizations will also need to engage with scientific evidence to support their proscription for social change.

This research must be objective. Increasingly, nonprofits produce their own in-house research to draw on the legitimacy of science to lend credibility to tactics and strategies that, when studied objectively by outside parties, would not demonstrate effectiveness. In other words, nonprofits recognize that science helps sell their strategy as effective, but, since science cannot support their ineffective tactics, they simply create their own science.

A new movement culture that genuinely wishes to address the crisis of speciesism should, therefore, nurture unbiased, replicable research that is designed to benefit effective Nonhuman Animal liberation. Research manufactured by nonprofit staff with little to no scientific training with aims of improving the institution’s appeal to elite-run foundations is not the sort of research that will achieve a vegan world.

Ultimately, nonprofits present a serious conundrum for effective activism. Nonprofits have essentially become an extension of the state, making their long-term utility to the movement questionable. Large sums of money are too frequently thought necessary to enact social change, but this economic logic of growth has protected the nonprofit industry from necessary scrutiny. Sociological theory has demonstrated that capitalist structures both create and aggravate inequality. Grassroots mobilization that challenges hierarchical movement structures, the hegemony of capitalist interests, and concentrated decision-making could allow for an openness to strategies supported by the science.

 

Readers can access the entire article here.
A condensed version of this research in the context of wider vegan movement studies was covered by The Atlantic.

 


Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights. Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Comments Off on Can Flexitarianism Facilitate a Vegan World? Research Suggests Another Agenda

Filed under Publications

Why Food Justice is a Feminist Issue

In an interview with Alternet’sHere’s Why Our Food Systems are a Central Feminist Issue,” I was asked to elaborate on women’s contributions to critical food justice and how current sexual politics inhibit or even invisiblize women’s contributions today.

Both the Nonhuman Animal rights movement and the environmental movement, I note, were established by women who strategically employed stereotypes about women’s proper role in nurturing and caring. This strategy was necessary to gain access to the public sphere in an era in which women were expected to remain inside the home and well outside of politics.

Unfortunately, this feminization persists in modern food justice efforts. Sociological and psychological research supports that environmental and vegan campaigns and products are less likely to find male support simply due to this feminization. This gender divide translates into a serious barrier to success given that men’s recognition is necessary for a movement to gain legitimacy in a patriarchal society.

Rather than celebrate women’s contributions to anti-speciesist efforts, the vegan movement has opted to elevate men in campaigning and leadership. This, to me, is indicative of intersectional failure. Patriarchal bargains are unlikely to liberate Nonhuman Animals given the historical relationship between sexism and speciesism:

… the fact that men have to be involved to bring legitimacy to a cause demonstrates that we still haven’t come to terms with the underlying ideological roots to oppression.

Readers can access the entire interview here.

 


Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about feminism and veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights. Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Comments Off on Why Food Justice is a Feminist Issue

Filed under Interviews

Veganism “At All Costs” Costs Animals

As my academic interests have turned to intersections of human and nonhuman inequality, I’ve come to recognize that many entanglements of oppression operate unchallenged within social justice spaces themselves. Unfortunately, the Nonhuman Animal rights/vegan movement presents a rich case study for sexism, racism, sizism, and classism. It also perfectly demonstrates the callous engagement of victim-blaming to protect this violence.

Once confronted with criticisms intramovement violence, many activists react by doubling down on discriminatory attitudes. Others simply ignore the problem altogether. Acknowledging intersectional failure is too often framed as “bad for the cause,” “drama,” or “attention-seeking.” This reaction is almost predictable given that the movement is dominated by those occupying positions of gender, race, body, or class privilege. Subsequently, the notion that veganism should be promoted at all costs, regardless of who it hurts, emerges as the movement mantra.

Violence in anti-speciesism efforts is a political problem. For one, it silences and intimidates existing activists. Silenced and intimidated activists are hardly effective ones. This violence also works to repel newcomers from participating. The strategy of pushing veganism at all costs while ignoring violence in the ranks means that new recruits will enter the movement only to bounce right back out. Worse, they may become victims, too. There is an imperative for activists to get their own house in order before welcoming new participants if the goal is to retain and sustain new vegans. It is even more important if the goal is to undermine violence rather than replicate it.

In The Revolution Starts at Home, activists across the social justice spectrum have observed that accusations of “creating drama” are employed so as to avoid airing a movement’s “dirty laundry.” This strategy is indicative of victim-blaming. By blaming the victim for the structural problems the victim identifies, the activist community attempts to redirect guilt and culpability. For instance, should they point out problems of racism, they are likely to be accused of racism themselves for the audacity of bringing up race in a society that is supposedly post-racial. Women who critique sexist patterns in the movement may be accused of hurting Nonhuman Animals with their selfishness. Victims are made to feel illogical, unreasonable, and insincere as a result. This is, curiously, a defense strategy that vegans themselves face when confronting nonvegans. The irony, however, is lost.

As a tactical matter, oppression cannot be undermined within a social movement community with willed ignorance.  As a philosophical matter, it is simply counterintuitive to proclaim that violence against animals should be combatted “at all costs” while simultaneously failing to address the more accessible suffering of human animals within the community. If the anti-speciesism movement cannot be a safe space for activists, it cannot be a powerful force. Instead, it only contributes to the culture of violence so abhorred by vegans.

The expectation is that presenting a false front of unity and cheerfulness will be more enticing to newcomers. But, again, ignoring the problem does not eliminate the problem. New activists lured under false pretenses are not likely to remain in the long term.

A version of this essay first appeared on the Academic Activist Vegan on December 4, 2013.


Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the nonprofit industrial complex in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights. Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Comments Off on Veganism “At All Costs” Costs Animals

Filed under Essays

Pussy Grabs Back: How Feminists Bestialized Politics but Failed Nonhuman Animals

In an article published with Feminist Media Studies, I explore the symbolic application of animal imagery in America’s largest protest to date, the 2017 Million Women March. In the march, women and their allies “bestialized” politics in an attempt to reclaim their animality as an asset rather than a disparagement. In this study, I looked beyond the pink pussy hats to also consider how this bestialization manifested in protest slogans and signage. Not only were cat pictures and costumes prevalent, but protester discourse regularly included plays on words such as, “This pussy grabs back” and “Hear me roar.”

Although feline imagery made for compelling visual protest, I argue that the march ultimately constitutes what Kimberlé Crenshaw might identify as intersectional failure. This finding is not surprising. Throughout the history of Western feminism, the most privileged in the ranks–Western, white, straight, middle-class, cis-gender, human females–have taken precedence over the most vulnerable. The exclusion of Nonhuman Animals is only consistent with the fallibility of feminist solidarity.

 


Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the politics of vegan feminism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights. Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Comments Off on Pussy Grabs Back: How Feminists Bestialized Politics but Failed Nonhuman Animals

Filed under Essays