If abolitionists conducted research like welfarists....
The Humane League's "labs" recently conducted a "study" inappropriately framing abolitionism as a matter of "purity" in its bid to prove that welfarism (THL's approach) was most effective. This "purity" label, as I have explained in previous writings, sets up an immediate bias. First, what abolitionist frames their work as a matter of purity? Really? Second, given the choice between "cruelty" and "purity," what participant would ever look fondly on this fictional stickler? The study was rigged, specifically designed to fail abolitionists.
Just today, Faunalytics (a non-profit that benefits from grants supplied by elite-run foundations which profit from status-quo inequality) was promoting the "study" with a title that reflects THL's biased framework: "Effective Messaging: Is Appealing to Purity, Environment, or Cruelty More Effective?" When assessing self-produced, self-serving research, it is important to think structurally. Like Faunalytics, THL also remains "in business" by appealing to speciesism. Speciesism is where the money is.
It should go without saying, but abolitionism isn't about purity. Abolitionism uses the frame of social justice and liberation, and this frame that is threatening to elites. This is why non-profits like Faunalytics, THL, etc. do the work of speciesists in regularly mischaracterizing abolitionist activism. They must distance themselves from this threat in order to protect their income.
The sharp increase in "science" used to support corrupted approaches is a theme I explore in my new book, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights. It is available for purchase through Palgrave Macmillan.
