The Academic Abolitionist Vegan is no more

Dear readers,
Due to the extreme abuse and harassment of women (particularly women of color) promoted by the abolitionist faction (and the appropriative nature of the abolitionist approach in general), I have decided to change the name of this blog to The Academic Activist Vegan. As I stated in earlier posts, the abolitionist faction has entrenched and systemic issues with racism and sexism, issues that it seems to have no interest in addressing. I feel it is necessary as a personal and a professional matter to distance myself from the abolitionist project.

It is of my opinion that pro-intersectional feminism is the most constructive, respectful, encompassing, just, and effective approach to dismantling oppression. Any approach that fails to take intersecting injustices seriously and insists on promoting wealthy white male elites as the gatekeepers of social change is an approach that simply won't get the job done.

There are likely to be technical problems with the page until I can update links. It is likely that I will be removing this page entirely in the near future and hosting some of the more important essays published here on my personal website.

All the best,
Corey L. Wrenn
Professor of Gender Studies

'It is Anything But': Sarah K. Woodcock Comments on Equality in Abolitionist Spaces

Dear colleagues,

I share this important letter that was today posted publicly on a social media page by my good friend Sarah K. Woodcock, founder of The Abolitionist Vegan Society (TAVS). This is the first time she has responded publicly to the racist microaggressions and harassment that the abolitionist movement has directed at her and other "intersectionalists" (a slur used by some abolitionists to describe abolitionist vegans who take a pro-intersectional approach) since the recent movement disruption documented on Vegan Trove (an anti-intersectional abolitionist platform that has been rejected by but still promotes Francione, a prominent abolitionist icon).

The concern over in-fighting and intra-movement violence in abolitionist spaces is nothing new. In Woodcock's case, she was forced to the center of this turmoil just over a year ago (TAVS has issued a public statement on the matter here and here). Woodcock and others have been upsetting the privilege and white-centrism of the abolitionist faction, only to be met with considerable hostility and limited support. Indeed, many white abolitionists remained silent on the matter of her victimization, or, worse, joined in it.

The message published here remains pertinent today as the pro-intersectional abolitionist community's commitment to nonviolence continues to encourage negative (and sometimes aggressive) responses from abolitionist leaders. I have omitted the names of those for whom the letter is specifically addressed, as the content of the letter actually speaks to a systemic issue. It is shared here with her permission.

[ . . . ] The abolitionist movement is racist and hostile to people of color. While it spouts off great ideas about being “against all forms of oppression,” its actions are not aligned with its words. It is *uncannily* similar to how nonvegans spout off great ideas about being “against animal cruelty” but live nonvegan. That is why I coined the term badgeally (Corey’s essay with examples, not just accusations here). The abolitionist movement is rampant with badgeallies.

And before you or anyone say this “This isn’t about race,” remember that saying that is a privilege only white people have. Please check your privilege.

Because society is systemically racist, the abolitionist movement replicates that system of inequality. White abolitionists have a responsibility to make the movement safe and inclusive for people of color. It is anything but. This is what Corey and I speak up about, and if you [...] and others have a problem with that, that should tell all of you something. I have been experiencing marginalization and microaggressions from white abolitionists since day 1 of my entering the movement. I have been and continue to be invisibilized, which is a classic racist tactic, by white abolitionists since day 1. In the beginning, when I naïvely thought white abolitionists would be concerned about this because they claim to be “against racism,” I raised my concerns to several white abolitionists. I was met with denial, more marginalization, more microaggressions, and more invisibilization.

One of the greatest things that happened since I split with Francione & Co. was that I came to the harsh realization that the abolitionist movement is not actually against racism. Of course, it and everyone in it claims to be against racism. But people of color don’t have the privilege or luxury of not seeing the truth behind those claims.

As for reconciliation, it is just like the abolitionist/nonabolitionist movements. There are fundamental ethical issues at stake here. Just as the abolitionist movement cannot “reconcile” with the nonabolitionist movement because it would mean compromising on fundamental ethical issues, the anti-racist abolitionist movement cannot “reconcile” with the racist abolitionist movement because it would mean compromising on fundamental ethical issues. To me, as a person of color, denying the racism in the abolitionist movement is as unacceptable as denying the speciesism in the vegan movement. For those who want to learn more about the racism (as well as the other forms of oppression) in the abolitionist movement, I recommend checking out The Academic Abolitionist Vegan. Wrenn has written extensively on these topics.

That is one of the things that makes TAVS different from the rest of the abolitionist movement. We refuse to deny and be silent about the racism in the abolitionist movement. We are building a movement that is safe (or safer) for people of color.

Well, as I wrote in my recent post on the TAVS page, I rarely post about drama in the abolitionist vegan movement because my time and energy is better spent on building the movement I want, not having exchanges like this, so I will be turning off notifications now. Take care, everyone.

Sarah

---

If you take anti-oppression seriously, it must extend beyond Nonhuman Animals to include all beings who are vulnerable to systemic violence. It's not only the just and moral approach; it simply makes good sense as a strategic matter.

Allies are requested to please show their support for Woodcock and The Abolitionist Vegan Society by getting involved with one or more of the many amazing ongoing non-violent, vegan, pro-intersectional campaigns that TAVS is currently running. Readers can join TAVS by visiting the website or link up by visiting TAVS on Facebook.

Effective Messaging: Is Appealing to Social Justice, Environment, or Efficient, More Profitable Exploitation More Effective?

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.

Everyday Vegan Racism: Cinco de Meow

I'm not a betting woman, but if I were, I believe it would be a safe bet that this adoption promotion was designed by a white-identified person:

And what are the odds that No Kill Learning, the website that promoted this image as a positive example, is operated by someone who is white-identified? Pretty good, I think.

The author writes:

[...] fun, creative adoption promotions, like the one [featuring the racialized cat], engage people, dramatically increase adoptions and save lives [...]

And finally, what are the odds that non-white people would be interested in adopting or joining a movement when their culture is stereotyped and mocked?

Place your bets.

The author continues:

As I have previously written, Engaging the Public is one of the most important aspects of animal sheltering and rescue. Without doing that, you basically can't do anything else. 

What public exactly?

This is a brilliant example of how white-centrism in animal advocacy creates significant disconnects, disconnects that disempower our message and aggravate the very social inequality we seek to dismantle.

Unfortunately, Google reaffirms that companion animal "shelters" are white spaces intended for white visitors:

And, no, just in case you were wondering, slapping a mustache and a sombrero on a cat is not "honoring" Mexican culture. It's stereotyping Mexican culture to appeal to a perceived white audience and nothing more.

Report Finds that Vegan-Avoidance Outreach Results in Vegan Avoidance

A colleague passed on some new research conducted by The Humane League (see here and here) (a non-vegan, pro-welfare organization dependent on grants and fundraising for survival) and has asked for my input. I will not go into the details of the methodological issues with the report, as the same issues surface time and time again and I have written about them in previous posts (see here and here) as well as my upcoming book to be released this month, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights. But in a nutshell, here's what's going on: a non-vegan organization that does not promote veganism or support veganism seeks evidence to support that its approach reduces the most harm and is thereby better than a vegan approach.

The organization's status as a non-vegan entity is important. As I told my friend, The Humane League (THL) investigating veganism with it's non-vegan approach is akin to an atheist organization investigating to what extent people will become religious after reading its promotional material. THL is not in the business of veganism, just as an atheist organization is not in the business of bringing folks to god.

The tendency for welfarist organizations to conduct their own research with staff members is also extremely problematic. These employees will understandably exhibit a strong conflict of interest. They will be expected to find data that supports the organization's grant-friendly, compromised approach. This just isn't good science. Seriously--imagine if the research found that a strong vegan message worked, do you think that this data would see the light of day, much less inform the organization's operations?

Welfarist organizations have invested decades of energy and billions of dollars into manipulating the social imagination into viewing veganism as unrealistic, weird, and undesirable. They even refer to veganism as a matter of "purity" in the language of the report--this loaded language demonstrates bias from the onset. Large charities have made reductionism the "common sense" approach for anyone who cares about animals.

As with many things that become "common sense," we forget that there are other possibilities. "It's better than nothing" logic obscures the fact that we aren't really dealing with compromise vs. nothing; there are options. We also lose sight of the powerful economic interests behind the enforcement of this ideology. It's no accident that alternatives are so difficult for activists to conceptualize. As I've been uncovering in my dissertation research, these organizations work very hard to keep the activist community and the public at large acquiescent.

Veganism is a radical, life-saving, capitalist-threatening political force. There is a reason why anti-vegan organizations like THL rise to power: elites that control the funding will certainly not fund organizations that threaten their livelihood. They are more likely to fund groups that are not threatening. In fact, they're even more likely to fund groups that are not threatening and help to delegitimatize the vegan grassroots collectives that do pose a threat. More bang for their buck.

To see a vegan world, it's not just a matter of supplying vegan pamphlets. The onus is really on the large charities to start promoting veganism as something that is admirable, desirable, and within reach. It's on these groups to start breaking down the systemic barriers to veganism. Unfortunately, as it stands, these groups are the systemic barriers to veganism. Sure, food accessibility is a problem, as is unfamiliarity with vegan food, or even social conformity. But anti-vegan groups posing as Nonhuman Animal "rights" organizations do the most damage in my opinion.

Here's the bottom line: just as we would not look to the beef and dairy industry for unadulterated, unbiased research on nutrition, we should not be looking to funding-focused large non-profits as an authority on effective activism. I think it's great that more organizations are actually taking some time to figure out if procedures are worth the investment, but it seems that science is simply being wielded as an ideological defense for corrupt tactics. These reports aren't intended to guide activists; they're intended to please funding agents.

The Vegans on the Bus Go Round and Round! New Campaign Announced

I am pleased to announce that The Abolitionist Vegan Society (TAVS) has launched its crowdfunding campaign to place vegan advertisements on the back of buses in major American cities. This is a cost-efficient means of bringing the vegan message to a large demographic of people, directing them to the TAVS "Why Veganism?" website where introductory anti-speciesism theory and vegan shopping resources are readily available.

This media tactic has already been widely adopted by groups like PETA and Mercy for Animals, but never in a coherent manner that takes the interest of Nonhuman Animals seriously. TAVS seeks to bring a truly vegan, truly anti-oppression message to the American public. I had a chance to speak with Sarah K. Woodock, founder of TAVS and designer of the campaign. She explains, "This campaign gives us the opportunity to reach literally millions of people with veganism. It would take us tens of thousands of hours of leafleting and tabling to reach the same number of people that we will reach over a period of months instead of years."

"Furthermore," she adds, "as abolitionist vegans, we talk about all of the ways not to do advocacy (i.e. engaging in nonabolitionist campaigns, using sexist tactics, using racist tactics, etc.). But here is a campaign that all vegans can confidently support—one that promotes veganism as the moral minimum and that is run by an organization that takes a pro-intersectional approach to vegan advocacy."

TAVS is hoping to meet their target by the end of 2015, can you help make it happen?

Click here to offer your support. 

Students Think Vegan Food Tastes Better, Research Finds

Researchers suspect familiarity with veganism is increasing fondness for plant-based fare

A 2015 publication in Food Quality and Preference finds that college students are more receptive to veganism than non-profits and policy makers may be willing to admit.^* The study suggests that foods that are similar will elicit similar responses, regardless of ingredients and origin.

Eighty students were provided a number of vegan and non-vegan food items, some were aware that the products were vegan or non-vegan, but others were not. The results?

Vegan products were not rated as less familiar than the animal-based equivalents. Even when people were told that they were eating vegan substitutes, their familiarity ratings were no different from those of subjects who were told they were eating foods of animal origin.  

[...]subjects did not indicate that they were less willing to try vegan products or foods they thought were vegan than the foods of animal origin or those they thought were of animal origin. 

[...]subjects also did not find the foods that were vegan or that they were told were vegan as more dangerous or disgusting than the foods that were of animal origin or that they were told were of animal origin.  

[...] there was no difference in expected liking for the taste of the foods [...] between the vegan and animal-based versions of the foods nor was there a difference in expected liking between subjects who were told they were rating vegan foods and those told they were rating animal-based foods.

Researchers also find that, for the most part, believing a food to be vegan actually increased how much the participants liked the taste. The only significant exception was vegan chocolate milk. The Daiya-based vegan macaroni and cheese even did well . . . until students were told it was vegan. Meatballs, both animal-based and plant-based, were the only items that were snubbed as disgusting, presumably because college students are not as familiar with meatballs as they are with the other foods in the study (chicken tenders, milkshakes, and macaroni & cheese).

Vegan or not? Students can't tell the difference.

Researchers suppose that this familiarity and openness to veganism could be a result of increased accessibility to vegan options for students of this particular campus. Their access is also increased by living in a metropolitan area (the study took place just outside of New York City). The New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania area has a well-established vegan community with a number of restaurants and grocery stores offering vegan options.

What does this mean for non-profits that refuse to promote veganism?

Popularizing veganism increases positive associations for veganism, and folks seem to be quite receptive to trying vegan foods. They even like many of the vegan foods more than the non-vegan foods. So, it is suspicious that non-profits are so insistent that the public will not be receptive to veganism and we must "meet them where they are." Non-profits rely on elite- and corporate-run foundations for funding, and many of these elites and corporations have relied on speciesism and oppression to amass their wealth and have no interest in dismantling inequality. As a result, vegan advocacy tends to be ignored by foundations and high-dollar individual donors, thereby encouraging non-profits to diminish or even demonize veganism as a strategy of survival and growth.

This research supports the notion that the continued invisibility and stigmatization of veganism facilitated by non-profits will only inhibit progress for vulnerable humans and nonhumans that would benefit greatly from veganism.

*This study specifically explores veganism as a diet, though participants were aware of the ethical considerations behind the food choices to the extent that it shaped their responses.

Work Cited
S. Adise, I. Gavdanovich, & D. Zellner. 2015. "Looks Like Chicken: Exploring the Law of Similarity in Evaluation of Foods of Animal Origin and their Vegan Substitutes." Food Quality and Preference 41: 52-59.