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.

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.

Defending Non-Abolitionism Bingo Card

From my good friends at The Abolitionist Vegan Society . . .

There is a social psychological tendency for us to assume that because something exists or predominates, it must be good and most appropriate. Challenge yourselves and others to think critically and to value evidence before supporting a position. Remember, ad-hominems are not valid arguments; neither is it valid to accuse vegans of hurting the animals for daring to disagree. 

Post-Speciesism and the Commodification of Animal Rights: Aldi's "Love Ireland" Campaign

I'm living in Cork, Ireland for the semester and have been exploring new stores, new vegan food, and new ways of advertising food products. Something I quickly noticed was the "Produced in Ireland" labeling scheme. The "Love Ireland" campaign seeks to challenge globalized food production, an environmentally taxing process that outsources agricultural work, threatens the state in creating a dependency on outsiders, and strains the local economy with job loss and import costs. Localizing food is an important form of resistance to this process. Local produce may cost more, though, in a globalized world. To counter this, advertising campaigns seek to reframe local food as patriotic, moral and familial, and ethical.  

At Aldi, I came across a full color booklet provided to customers that pulls on Irish nationalism and nostalgia for the past to push Irish-made food.  Certain themes repeat to frame "Love Ireland" products as an ethical choice and a political action: green pastures, families, and happy animals. Unfortunately, in a speciesist world where Nonhuman Animals and their products are still considered "food," Nonhuman Animal rights has become a commodity. 

If we conduct an informal content analysis of the Aldi brochure, we can see how animal welfare is carefully constructed to encourage purchasing and to increase production.  This is an important counter to the belief that working to improve welfare will move society towards the abolition of speciesism. Nonhuman Animal rights groups promote reforms as easy victories, but in doing so, they create problematic alliances with industry to reach "compromises" that are often framed as economic incentives. Commodifying animal rights works to entrench speciesism by facilitating a "post-specisism" ideology. The public is made to believe that animal rights have been achieved through careful media campaigns that create a false challenge to systemic discrimination against other animals. In a "post-speciesist" world, few would openly admit to wanting animals to suffer and most believe themselves to be "animal lovers." This false ideology obscures structural oppression, thus protecting and perpetuating it.

Starting with the cover, we see a dairy cow identified as "Daisy the dairy cow," though it is clear that her real "name" is 0722. Naming her on the brochure implies that she is individualized and treated as a person with interests, though she was pulled from her mother at a young age, repeatedly raped, had her own babies taken from her, and will end up as hamburger before she reaches adulthood. Indeed, she was probably dead before her picture hit Aldi stores.

Meet the Loughnanes, who produce Irish "pork" in a fashion that has been "handed down through four generations of Loughnane family butchers," with all of their "ingredients" sourced in Ireland. Rhetoric of family, tradition, and heritage implies that buying pig flesh under the "Love Ireland" label is an ethical action. This framework obscures systemic violence, but also increases it.  Brendan O'Reilly's "100% Irish" "free range eggs" come from birds who are "free to roam" and are "happier hens because of it." Aldi's program has helped him to "reach a much bigger market."

Callan Bacon Ltd., a family using "traditional" curing methods on their "humble premises," have been butchers for four generations as well. Aldi's program has increased their staff to almost 200 in the past five years.

The Town of Monaghan's "small indigenous fresh dairy produce manufacturer" "depends on the support of retailers" to get their products to consumers, and Aldi's support has helped them to establish their presence in the marketplace.

The Grady family dairy employs 140 people in their cow exploitation farms: "Aldi's support has contributed to our ability to maintain our long tradition [,,,]"

Killower Farm claims: "Happier cows. Tastier yogurt." People pay for "tastier yogurt," but they are also paying for the fantasy of "happy cows":  "Their cows enjoy a lifestyle that involves clean air, lots of fresh grass and a gentle routine. [...]  The cows enjoy their routine and will even appear at the gate to be milked if the Farm Manager, Sean, is running late!" One is left to wonder if they line up to be raped and slaughtered as well.  Sadly, this false claimsmaking works: "As a result of working with Aldi we have been able to employ extra people on our farm in Enniscorthy."

At this "free range" family chicken farm, producers report: "Demand from Aldi for our products has helped secure our family farm income and also provides employment to several local poultry industry services in Limerick." 

Irish Country Meats, a "lamb supplier," ensures readers that Aldi's lambs are, "predominantly reared outdoors, grazing freely on Irish pastures. These are the ideal conditions for raising lamb and result in fresh meat that is not only lean and nutritious, but totally natural too."

ABP "beef suppliers" have also reported remarkable growth since working with Aldi. They now work with a network of over 35,000 farmers, spending over 450 million euros each year in the "acquisition of cattle" and staff employment.

Welfare "reform" and local food initiatives are not moving us towards abolition; they are facilitating a false ideology of post-speciesism and make the industry more viable. It paints an inherently violent industry as a patriotic, family-centered, traditional, and ethical industry. 

Animal Suffering Motivates Behavior Change

I came across a unique vending machine idea in Istanbul that encourages folks to recycle and to feed and water free-living dogs and cats. People insert recyclables into the vending machine, and it dispenses food (click for more images and a video).  There is also a spout for people walking buy with water bottles to share their leftover water with thirsty nonhumans.   The inventor suggests that the purpose of the project is to instill a feeling of efficacy regarding pro-social behavior, but I see something else at work here.  It seems that these vending machines use images of other animals (both happy and sad pictures are used) in order to create behavior change.  This is promising, because it reaffirms what many of us are already aware of--humans care about other animals, want them to experience pleasure and safety, and want them to avoid suffering.

This project is also interesting because it creates an easy opportunity for passerby to act on their desire to behave pro-socially for other animals in their community in a meaningful and direct way.  One of the major problems with mainstream animal advocacy is that non-profits keep concerned individuals distanced from the social problem, encouraging them to participate only through donations and perhaps petition signing. Large non-profits like Vegan Outreach often turn volunteers away, asking for their money instead. I have argued that this approach is disempowering (meaning only those with financial means can participate, while a large variety of other useful skills and non-monetary contributions are devalued or ignored) and elitist (privileged folks from middle-class backgrounds with expensive college degrees get to make the decision on where the money goes and what solutions are appropriate).

I also think this type of approach widens the human-nonhuman divide by putting animal suffering "out there" "somewhere," hurting "some animals."  Indeed, social psychological research has shown that distance of this kind can impact a person's desire to behave pro-socially (for instance, more Americans donate and donate more to hurricane relief in the United States than they do to provide assistance to those suffering natural disasters in "far off lands" like Asia).  Hands-on social change efforts like vending machines keep people in direct contact with vulnerable persons in their community, instilling empathy, social responsibility, and the desire to act pro-socially.  Research shows that when people feel like they can "do" something and that their "something" will make a difference, they are much more likely to participate and to continue to participate in the future.

On the other hand . . . I'm not too keen on the survival of homeless dogs and cats relying only on the kindness of strangers.  Access to necessities like food and water should be basic rights afforded to urban-dwelling nonhumans.  Likewise, this type of activism represents only a band-aid effort at helping other animals, and does nothing to seriously address structural problems and ideologies of speciesism that create these problems in the first place.  I am also concerned that this form of "easy activism" can aggravate that problem.  True, many people do not engage social movements because of the cost or risk potentially involved, but some types of social problems cannot be solved with a quick fix.  Can we create a vending machine that encourages people to go vegan and to stay vegan?

Review: The Ecological Hoofprint

The Ecological Hoofprint:  The Global Burden of Industrial Livestock was recommended to me by David Nibert as it is sociologically oriented and critical of animal product consumption.  It provides an excellent summary of the major environmental arguments against meat in the context of global inequality and the agricultural industrial complex.  It is a good companion to Meatonomics, This is Hope: Green Vegans and the New Human Ecology, and David Nibert’s work.  In general, I think this work is an excellent introduction into the sociology of food systems and environmental sociology.  It also speaks to animals & society discourse, though it is decidedly anthropocentric and speciesist in its conclusions.

It is very intersectional and critical of capitalism, tracing the historical process towards the system we have today. Weis argues that, in earlier times, most energy came from the sun (rather than fossil fuels) and travel was restricted because it was not efficient (a phenomenon he calls the “friction of distance”). Because the farmers couldn’t move around much, they had to take care of what resources they had locally available and farm more responsibly.  However, capitalism eroded this friction of distance with the rise of globalization and colonialism.  This has led to large scale environmental destruction and climate change.

The book also discusses how environmentalism has been framed in a way that obscures problems and protects capitalist interests.  Weis is refreshingly critical of the overpopulation rhetoric that blames environmental degradation on population (i.e. poor people and vulnerable communities).  This position ignores the role that livestock production plays.  He calls this focus on human population “corporate greenwash” and is critical of how technology, development, and capitalist growth are reframed as solutions, when they are, in fact, the problem.  Overpopulation rhetoric obscures global inequality and focuses on the more easily targeted “distant other”:

Rather than the persistence of high fertility rates being a cause of poverty and degradation, critics counter, these are better understood as a symptom or an effect of things like class, patriarchy, and other inequalities, and the dependence of the poor upon children for such things as labor and old-age security. (35)

This is perhaps the crux of his argument: We are ignoring the Nonhuman Animal component:

The ecological footprint presents a call to understand consumption in terms of the bundles of land, water, resources, pollution, and GHG emissions embedded in production, and in turn the tremendous environmental dimension of economic inequalities. The ecological hoofprint seeks to connect and extend some of these basic concerns to a different and much bigger ‘population bomb’ than what environmentalists have long focused upon: that which is occurring within systems of industrial livestock production. (50) 

A primary goal of the ecological hoofprint as a concept and metaphor is to call attention to the large, wide-ranging, and highly uneven burden of industrial livestock production.  To do this, it develops a political ecological framework for understanding the industrial grain-oilseed-livestock complex as a system in motion, and how its fundamental economic logic (or imperatives) gives shape to the social and ecological relations of production, including the associated instabilities and the ways they are overridden. (52)

Unfortunately, Weis operates under the assumption that animal products are good for human health, which is indicative that he has not addressed the volumes of research that have demonstrated quite the opposite.  He also hangs on to the falsehood that animal production could ideally be beneficial to humanity, even suggesting that small scale animal agriculture can be beneficial to the environment.  However, he does admit that not all societies relied on livestock or required it.  He also challenges the “contract” justification between humans and other animals (the fantasy that Nonhuman Animals happily give up their children, labor, and lives to be "cared for").  He rightfully refers to this as violent and evidence of human supremacy.  Much of the book also reiterates Nibert’s arguments and claims that animal agriculture is inherently tied to class and gender exploitation as well as colonialist expansion.  The rise of animal agriculture is a project of colonization and oppression.

To some degree, Weis is critical of the objectification of Nonhuman Animals and is quite critical of welfare reform (as it supports the logic of capitalism and only seeks to make industry more efficient).  However, it appears that the return to Old MacDonald's Farm is his ultimate desire:

An ecologically rational conception of efficiency thus turns a basic tenet of modernization on its head: rather than technology displacing labor in large monocultures, there is a need for labor and knowledge to displace mechanization. [ . . . ] In the course of rethinking efficiency, ways must be found to ensure equitable outcomes that valorize the labor, skill, and ecological services of bio-intensive farms [ . . . ].  What this analysis makes clear, though, is that dismantling the industrial-grain-oilseed-livestock complex is at the very center of any hopes of making world agriculture more sustainable, socially just, and humane” (149).

Weis suggests the “livestock population bomb” be addressed to reduce the livestock population dramatically.  He ends with a discussion of vegetarianism, humane farms, and veganism, but is very wishy-washy about veganism, indicating
that it is unrealistic or unnecessary.  This, I believe, is the greatest weakness of the book. Though the majority of the book was astonishingly intersectional, well-argued, and sociologically-sound, his stubborn refusal to seriously acknowledge the scientific research demonstrating the toxic effect of animal products on human health makes this book one I would probably not recommend.  No book that claims to take on environmental problems and issues of social justice but sells out the animals and continues to view them as expendable commodities will be credible social science in my opinion.  For this reason, I would direct readers interested in these topics to the books recommended at the beginning of this review, primarily that of David Nibert.

UPDATE 04/16/2014:

The author has since contacted me and is not happy with some of the conclusions I've drawn, specifically in my claims that he does not address the health risks of animal-based diets and the desire for a turn to "humane" farming practices.  I encourage readers to read the book for themselves and form their own conclusions.  This essay is a reposting from a review I posted on my Goodreads.com account. In that review, I gave the book 4 out of 5 stars, as I do think the book has quite a bit to offer the field. Given the choice, however, I would still recommend Meatonomics, This is Hope, or Nibert's 2002 and 2013 publications over this one.

The Science of Authority

In the Spring issue of Chickpea Magazine, I have contributed a piece that explores a social psychological phenomenon known as food-in-the-door. This phenomenon is increasingly pulled on by welfarist organizations to legitimate their reformist positions.  The assumption is that activists can get their foot in the door by selling higher welfare products, vegetarianism, or other forms of reductionism to the public. Following that, it will be much easier to transition people into veganism.

I have been critical of this kind of vegan science because it is generally conjured up to contend with criticisms that welfare reform does not work.  Though welfare reform has been the priority of the animal "rights" movement since the early 1800s, animal oppression has grown exponentially since that time.  Animal oppression has only been reinforced because reforms make the speciesist system more efficient and they create the illusion that animal suffering is being dealt with. Welfare measures shape the public imagination about Nonhuman Animal use.

Welfarism does not work, but advocates pull on science to legitimize their ineffectual approach.  For instance, Nick Cooney presented his charade of social psychology to the Animal Rights Conference in 2012, titling it "The Facts" (worryingly, this is the same title he gave to his now removed public response to accusations of sexually assaulting a woman).  This framework is important. Science is often drawn upon to bring legitimacy to policies, behaviors, decisions, etc.  Once you can show that science is on your side--your position becomes legitimate, right, and, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Actually, Cooney's claims stand on shaky ground.  They would make anyone professionally trained in social science cringe.

Science is supposed to advance our society by challenging taken for granted assumptions and ignorances that impede us. Welfarists simply pull on the authority of science without the substance to back it up.  Instead of moving us forward, welfarists use science to support the status quo. It is also used to obscure ulterior motives (welfare reform may not liberate animals, but it generates a lot of fundraising).  Think about it--if global animal oppression is on the increase and non-profits have failed to make meaningful change, how could we really be expected to believe that the science backs up non-profit tactics? If the science of non-profiteering worked, we should have seen some progress by now.  The evidence is in:  Nonhuman Animal oppression is skyrocketing, as is the wealth of HSUS, PETA, Farm Sanctuary, and other non-profits.

Importantly, Cooney has no advanced degree in Social Psychology. Melanie Joy, another popular social psychologist activist, has a PhD from an obscure, poorly ranked graduate institution and is an adjunct professor with no scientific publications. She and Cooney each operate a welfarist organization that depends heavily on skewed science to protect reformist goals and fundraising sources.  Neither she or Cooney, our two most prominent authors in vegan social psychology, have published with an academic press (which requires peer-review and scientific rigor).  Despite lacking sufficient credentials, these are the people who are defining the "science" for us. My intention is not to be mean, but rather to encourage readers to be skeptical of the assumptions we have about credibility in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement.

I invite you to check out my essay with Chickpea Magazine where I reimagine how social psychology might be applied in ways that works in the interest of Nonhuman Animals, not non-profit organizations and their staff.  As you navigate the contentious space of animal activism, be aware of how science is socially constructed.  Science is supposed to be objective and value-free, but this is never the case. Science is political.

How Animal Welfare Willfully Obscures Science

In her piece for The Huffington Post, "How Animal Welfare Advances Veganism and Animal Rights," Karen Dawn makes the strange argument that avoiding vegan advocacy will somehow promote veganism. Aside from the fact that this strategy has been in place for decades with the full support of multiple heavily funded organizations and has failed to work, I am especially concerned with the bad science that influential advocates are pulling on to substantiate their agendas.

Dawn presumes that an organization's tactics are devised by a skilled team of social psychologists, academics, and other researchers who are seeking the most effective method of persuasion. In actuality, decisions are made by a skilled team of well-paid grant-writers, accountants, and expert fundraisers. Organizations aren't hiring researchers, they're hiring people who know money. This is because animal rights, like any other corporatized social problem, is a business. If you want to be in the business of animal rights, you need to know how to be a skilled fundraiser...nobody is hiring social psychologists. This isn't about social change, this is about bureaucratic stability and growth.

Many advocates wrongly build their arguments on the faulty presumption that our large organizations have worked out the most persuasive and effective approach to challenging speciesism. The belief that big non-profits prioritize social change over fundraising leads many of us to uncritically accept some really strange positions. For instance, Dawn argues: "[ . . . ] softer campaigns get people to take that first step in the right direction." In other words, peddling happy meat (and, if we're lucky, vegetarianism) will lead people to become vegan.  Really? I'd like to see some evidence.

Research conducted by the meat industry itself has shown that increased concern about animal welfare has had no effect on consumption patterns. People are still eating animals because, 1) the animal rights movement isn't telling them there is any problem with doing so, and, 2) animal rights organizations put their stamp of approval on "happy" meat products.

Indeed, Tyson, Perdue, and other industries that profit from the exploitation of animals have been jumping on board.  Whole Foods, the epitomization of "soft campaigning,"  has been raking in millions of dollars thanks in no small part to animal welfare's sold out philosophy.

Dawn's argument is drawing on the social psychology of meeting people where they are: make people feel good about their present attitudes and behaviors and they will be more compliant. That's fair enough, but there is no evidence to support the censorship of veganism and the outright denigration of vegan principles by major organizations will do anything to move people towards veganism. Organizations aren't meeting people where they are in order to nudge them away from speciesism, they're meeting people where they are so as not to alienate potential check writers.

Reverse psychology only works on little children. "I bet you won't go vegan!" might get an obstinate five year old to trade in a McDonalds Happy Meal for soy nuggets and Silk milk, but censoring veganism from animal rights campaigning is not going to convince the public that veganism is achievable or ethically imperative. The animal rights industry's "soft stance" has nothing to do with effectiveness of persuasion and everything to do with insuring a constant donation flow from the conservative funders that keep them in business.

Misconstruing the science of social change with the science of exploiting people for money in the name of social change is really quite problematic. Animal welfare does little if anything to advance veganism. All it does is advance industry interests and make abolitionist advocacy that much more difficult for the rest of us. It is our job as a social movement to advocate for the society we want to see. If we want a vegan world, we have to advocate for veganism and nothing short of that. Some people will go vegan, others will not. Some will reduce their intake, some will start to think more critically. It is up to us to set the standards and start dismantling structures that impede behavior change. Meeting people where they are means taking seriously the barriers that prevent people from going vegan. This does not entail pretending veganism isn't important. Neither does it entail obscuring veganism with the hopes that some people will magically surmise how important veganism is.

Why the Abolitionist Approach Cannot Succeed

Kim Stallwood has been tweeting all day with variations of this request:

Looking for examples of animal rights laws passed by the implementation of abolition strategy advocated by Francione et al.
— Kim Stallwood (@grumpyvegan) February 24, 2014

Okay, I'll bite.

There are no examples, nor are there likely to be any in the near future. Abolitionism hasn't achieved much of anything.

But not so fast...

The prompt is obviously designed to elicit a simple admission of failure, but it is both leading and dishonest. Really, it reminds me of my ignorant white friends who blame people of color for being poor. It also reminds me of well-to-do people who blame poor persons for being on welfare. Or those who blame women for being poor, underpaid, devalued (or even raped). If they aren't succeeding, it must be their fault, right?

Social Movement Inequality and the Welfarist Hegemony

Most of us recognize that these positions are not telling the whole story. As with social inequality, the social movement arena also has a set of power dynamics that we must consider. In the same way that a patriarchy is set up to benefit certain groups (men) and disadvantage others (women) and a white supremacy is set up to benefit certain groups (whites) and disadvantage others (people of color), the welfarist hegemony is designed to benefit professionalized welfarist groups and disadvantage radical grassroots groups (this trend holds true for all social movements). Men and white people have all the money, prestige, and opportunities, and, as an extension of that, they also get to make the rules, dominate claimsmaking, and create meaning and ideologies that support their supremacy. Welfarist organizations are no different.

Even small non-professionalized groups can benefit in this system by adhering to the value-structure welfarists have created. Small groups might not have access to the huge pool of resources that PETA and HSUS have, but they can tap into the power of their claimsmaking and networking. When a small group rallies against gestation crates, for example, they are drawing on the ideological power of Mercy for Animals. They can also call on MfA for leaflets, volunteers, and other supports. If they promote ethical veganism and avoid reform campaigns, they get the cold shoulder and suddenly have a lot more difficulty finding grants and institutional support. Again, this is typical of all social movements. By way of an example, the gay rights movement is dominated by large groups like the HRC that prioritize reform (like gay marriage), while the smaller groups that focus on those issues that aren't profitable to the large non-profits (like gay homelessness) get squeezed out.

In a system like this, where large groups have dominated the ideological landscape and control almost all of the resources available to the movement, the abolitionist faction simply doesn't have a chance. PETA, HSUS, MfA, CoK, FARM, Farm Sanctuary, Vegan Outreach and others rake in almost all of the donations, they have all the state/industry/elite/foundation connections, and they enjoy the ability to frame animal rights and what "effective" activism is. In doing so, they make it nearly impossible for anyone else to advocate. Abolitionists (and other radical activists like those in the No Kill faction) are left with table scraps. We're shouting to be heard from down on the floor at the ankles of the big organizations that sit at the feasting table of the non-profit industrial complex.

My point here is that it is illogical to misconstrue social movement inequality with social movement inefficacy. If abolitionists had equal access, then maybe we could start to judge how well vegan education and anti-speciesist values could work. But we lack the funding, and large organizations refuse to give veganism a chance. What's more, they spend a whole lot of time denigrating anti-speciesist rhetoric and portraying veganism as "hard" or elitist."

Welfarists do Welfare

The other important problem with Kim's question is that he assumes that welfarists and abolitionists want the same thing. Welfarists want reform and they have the resources to seek reform, so that's what they get. As Gary Francione has explained, this success is easily achieved, not only due to the vast resources welfarists enjoy, but also because these reforms are mostly desired by industries that capitalize on public concern for animal welfare. See this new outreach poster he has been circulating:

In the words of Roger Yates, welfarists do welfare. Abolitionists don't want legal reform, we want abolition. In a grossly speciesist world that exploits billions of Nonhuman Animals and in a movement culture that more or less condones it, laws are wholly inapplicable. No law passed in a speciesist society will do anything to help animals. Lest we forget, the legal system is an institution designed to protect and promulgate the interests of the privileged. As Gary Francione explains in Animals, Property and the Law (echoed by several other legal philosophers like Lee Hall and David Cassuto), any law we pass in the current political climate will only work to cement speciesism. Abolitionists don't want legal change...at least not yet. One of the foundational principles of abolitionist animal rights is to first advocate for veganism and create a critical mass of vegans, and to then work to change laws to reflect these new social attitudes. With less than 2% of the American population identifying as vegan, we're not ready for legal action yet.

Abolition Strategy

I titled this essay "Why the Abolitionist Approach Cannot Succeed," not because I think it is a lost cause, but because I think we have some serious institutional barriers to overcome.  Vegan Outreach alone raked in a million bucks last year and then squandered it all on reductionist, anti-vegan nonsense. Just imagine what change we could make if the movement redirected its resources towards a genuine animal rights message. PETA pulled in about 31 million dollars last year. What if PETA quit labeling No Kill advocates as hoarders and started funding adoption strategies? HSUS pulled in 149 million dollars. What if HSUS were to stop colluding with meat industries and began countering them instead?

Do I think there is hope for the movement? For abolitionism? I do. I have dedicated my career (brief as it has been thus far!) to the position. I've seen the movement start to take notice. Kim and other big players in the movement are starting to respond. They are beginning to recognize that our position is a valid one...or at the very least a persistent one. After all, that is one of the main purposes of radical factions for any social movement: to keep the professionalized organizations that sell out to the non-profit industrial complex in check. Their wealth of resources comes at a cost. Incorporating into the capitalist model means their power to create structural change is effectively neutralized. Abolitionists may be disadvantaged in money, networking, and ideological power, but we do have the freedom from the bureaucratic non-profit spiderweb needed to keep our position honest. We can still afford to put Nonhuman Animals first.

Best Vegan & Animal Rights Literature & Outreach Material

As a longtime critic of popular vegan outreach literature, I am often asked what alternatives I would recommend. Many presume that the single-issue, reduction-based vegetarian literature plastered with donation requests produced by large professionalized welfare organizations like PETA, Mercy for Animals, Vegan Outreach, etc. are "better than nothing." Yeah, it stinks they won't say "go vegan," it stinks they don't acknowledge structural racism, but, they're cheap, glossy, and "better than nothing."

Well, that certainly isn't the case. We do have a choice. Some groups are making some pretty excellent outreach material.  I am a fan of the Boston Vegan Association's booklet (which is color, high quality, and free to abolitionists who fill out a contact form). Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary hosts lots of excellent printable flyers.  More recently, the Food Empowerment Project has released some astounding activist resources. In addition to their bilingual mini booklets and flyers, they have just launched a series of mailed newsletters (Food Chain) designed to retain new vegans.

Lauren Ornelas was kind enough to send me the entire set, and I have to say they are rather amazing. While these are not intended for handing out to random people on the street (they are better suited to persons who have had some contact with vegan activists or are otherwise already interested in learning more), they offer an important longterm outreach plan to those who are interested in changing their relationship with food. Each issue introduces different topics on food ethics, making the complexity of vegan politics more digestible. The newsletters are glossy with beautiful illustrations. It's not just depressing stuff; they also cover happy endings at sanctuaries, nutritional information, and excellent vegan recipes.

What I love most about the series: They are intersectional and they are vegan. Veganism is presented within an anti-oppression framework in a welcoming way. Importantly, these newsletters are designed to reach beyond the middle-class white demographic by specifically acknowledging human oppression.

So, please, skip the "Vegan" Outreach compromise flyers/donation requests. We can definitely do better!