Good for you, Bob. I couldn't agree more. My journey towards veganism began with some choices made for for some pretty misguided reasons, but it didn't take me long to come around to the right way of looking at the exploitation of animals. Like you, I say that anything that gets someone started on the path is good, but ideally people would go further than just getting started... they would go all the way and eventually understand the issues in a deeper way.
Bob Torres
· 7 months ago
Misguided reasons or not, they got you here, right? ;) People come at this from a million different angles, and I think that's fantastic. Ultimately, many do come around to see an animal rights vision, and I now espouse beliefs that a mere 10 years ago I would have found quite nuts. But that's how life goes. Thanks for your comment.
TangerineTangerine
· 8 months ago
agreed.. environmental argument is not good enough reason to go vegan- nor is it the right reason on its own. there are ways to go around it- and there will probably be even more ways to make the animal exploitation more environmentally friendly. just like there are ways to go around the health argument. (u can be on a healthy vegan diet and wear leather- but what difference does that make for an animal- if it will be killed to be eaten or to be worn?) i see the environmental argument more as a bonus- something on the side of the ACTUAL argument- which is animal rights. like you say, the term vegan is originally coined to recognize & support animal rights. we should stick to this meaning _uncompromisingly_ or else veganism as an AR movement is in serious trouble.
Bob Torres
· 7 months ago
Agreed. Ultimately, only AR veganism is what will keep people vegan, as you point out. I think it is way too easy to look at it from any other angle and find ways around it without too much ethical compromise. The rights position foregrounds a different set of concerns.
BurbankVegan
· 8 months ago
Excellent post. Vegan is a different journey for everyone. Personally, when I stopped eating meat and dairy for health reasons, I became interested in, and later accepted the concept that animals are not ours to use as we please. As people are waking up to enviro-veganism, it is a perfect opportunity for us to share with them about veganism. They are obviously open to making this world a better place, and they have taken a major first step toward ending animal exploitation.
Bob Torres
· 7 months ago
It definitely is a different path for each person, no doubt there. I completely agree that if someone comes to veganism through other means -- health, environment -- we have an opportunity to talk about the ethical reasons, because ultimately, I believe these are the only ones that will inspire people to remain fully vegan in the long-term.
Corey Wrenn
· 8 months ago
I'm actually writing my dissertation on the exclusion of veganism from the American environmental movement. I argue that from the environmentalist perspective, they are missing out bigtime on some real change by not including veganism. However, I'm only secondarily an environmentalist, I am first and formost an ethical vegan. Thanks for this point of view, I think this will be very important to address in my research.
Bob Torres
· 7 months ago
Ah right, I got your email, but have been so overwhelmed that I neglected a response. Sorry about that -- busy weeks here. I'll get back to you soon.
Bob Torres
· 7 months ago
Thank you all for the thoughtful comments. I do think there's an opportunity here that we shouldn't ignore.
Denise
· 7 months ago
The factor that initially pushed me over the edge to vegan was the Livestock's Long Shadow report by the UN as quoted by Thich Nhat Hanh. In the same letter to his Buddhist community, Thich Nhat Hanh also advocated eliminating dairy and eggs for reasons of compassion. I have since fully adopted an abolitionist view. It makes sense to me on all levels, but the ethical reasons trump all others.
Bob Torres
· 7 months ago
Thanks, Denise. I do think there are many levels to consider, and I would certainly advocate a more holistic vision than one offered either by veganism itself or environmentalism itself.
Dave
· 7 months ago
I'm sorry but your very premise is ridiculous. Maybe the guy who conied the term in 70 years ago had one thing in mind, but the term has come to mean something else. It is a definition of a diet, not a life style. I'm a vegan, and I do it for the environment. Let me ask you a question, would you refuse modern medical treatment because it was tested on animals? I hope you never need surgery, because guess what, EVERYTHING was testing on animals. We have to be rational about this. You can't just pick and choose. Are you going to start refusing medical treatment? My guess is no. So please, stop with the "there is only one way!" BS. I know you said it many times, that it's good people are doing this, but then you do the whole my-way-is-the-right-way bit, which is of course ridiculous. I think there are farmers who love their animals and decide to eat them when they die. I think there are scientists who have the utmost respect for the animals they test medication on, knowing it might save a humans life some day. You don't get to define what love is or how people act on it. This was pretty short sighted in my opinion.
Bob Torres
· 7 months ago
You say my premise is ridiculous, but you don't really say what's ridiculous about it, and instead throw out a comparison that makes no sense. Veganism is most definitely not merely a diet; it is living principles in your daily life that happens to have a dietary component. To me, veganism isn't merely about what I eat. It is about how I see animals and how I believe that humans should relate to them. It is me living those principles as best I can in my life.
As for the medical treatment, I don't really get your point at all, especially as it relates to what I wrote above. Because I hate wasting effort, I'll just paste in something from the draft of our book, because it explains why your criticism is absurd:
--- begin quote --
The ubiquity of animal products in unavoidable places is a by-product of speciesism – we live in a world in which the social and economic systems provide us with no other real alternatives to these products, some of which are absolutely essential to our health or livelihoods. In this case, because we have no real, viable alternative, we have no choice but to consume the things that we need to live. As a result, it is often difficult to avoid all animal products as a practical matter. Gary Francione addresses this same point in his book Introduction to Animal Rights:
“…assume that we find that the local water company employs child labor and we object to child labor. Are we obligated to die of dehydration because the water company has chosen to violate the rights of children? No, of course not. We would be obligated to support the abolition of this use of children, but we would not be obligated to die. Similarly, we should join together collectively and demand an end to animal exploitation, but we are not obligated to accept animal exploitation or forego any benefits that it might provide.”19
The important point here is to recognize when you’re in a situation in which consuming the product that contains animal ingredients is unavoidable versus when it is avoidable. We can’t stress enough that most people can easily avoid animal products and foods containing them – even when they’re on vacation in Paris. Yet, we don’t want anyone thinking that to be a “good” vegan, they need to forego medicine that has been prescribed to them by a doctor,20 or that they need to give up their daily commute because of the by-product in the tires of the bus they’re riding in.
--- end quote ---
All that said, I especially don't get your point about farmers and animals. I love my dogs. I have no desire to eat any of them when they die. I have the utmost respect for you as a commenter on my blog, but I have no wish to show that respect by injecting you with medications, or exposing your eyes to toxic chemicals until you're blinded by them. You're right: I don't get to define love. But no one who is sane would define anything like any of the foregoing as love. Would you? Honestly? Would you be flattered if your lover said that he or she wished to show her love for you by confining you and testing deadly chemicals on you, and then harvesting your liver to look for toxicity?
Veganism is about animal rights, and it always has been. I'm simply asking people to consider that.
Chris
· 7 months ago
Well said. I became vegetarian many years ago primarily for environmental reasons and that did lead me to veganism but I became vegan, and more importantly have stayed vegan, for ethical reasons.
Bob Torres
· 7 months ago
I know many vegans who took your path, Chris. I actually do think there are fantastic environmental benefits to veganism. My hope, though, is that people who come to it for environmental reasons move in the same direction you did. Thanks.
fnord0
· 7 months ago
I'm not sure who this article is meant for.
If it's for hard core animal rights vegans (like myself), then you should already know that we already know that veganism for environmental reasons is missing the point. There's no need to preach this message to the choir. We're already there.
If, on the other hand, you were reaching out to "envirovegans" with this piece, then there is little point in telling them "those of us who are vegan to respect the inherent personhood of animals have to [...] see veganism for what it is really about: the rights of non-humans." It's no use talking to them about "founding a long-term movement that seeks to accord animals substantial rights" because currently, that's really and truly not their goal. By forcing this ideology and these goals on them you're giving them an easy excuse to stop reading your article. It’s obviously not written for them. It patronizes them and makes wrong assumptions about their value system.
I think it's a better strategy to acknowledge some RESPECT for these people's beliefs about veganism being the best way to help the environment, and then EXPLAIN to them, slowly, about animal rights, from the ground up. This way, we have a better chance of reaching them than by implying that they are closet AR activists who need to come out and admit that they're really concerned with animal rights more than with the environment.
Bob Torres
· 7 months ago
The article is written for us, animal rights vegans. In the second paragraph, I say:
"If the environment gets people thinking about veganism and moving towards veganism, that’s wonderful, but ultimately, those of us who are vegan to respect the inherent persoonhood of animals have to take an active role in moving envirovegans beyond their mere environmentalism and into getting them to see veganism for what it is really about: the rights of non-humans."
Granted, you're probably right that the presentation could be improved. It almost always can be, and this is just a blog entry, and not one that I've revised much. As for the accusations of "patronizing" and making wrong assumptions, that's just patently wrong. A great deal of the enviroveganism I've seen has been unreflective and rather ignorant of the personhood of animals. Just look up above to Dave's comments for a fine example. He implies that there's love in eating animals. Now, that's anecdotal observation, but it is a bit uncanny.
I don't see where the wrong assumptions are. I'm not convinced that everyone who is vegan for the environment actually is vegan for animal rights reasons, so I'd not suggest that they "come out" of any particular closet. Instead, I'm asking people to remember what veganism is about at its core. This seems relatively straightforward to me. Respecting the inherent personhood of animals may not be the ultimate goal of envirovegans, but I'm not actually convinced that veganism makes complete sense as an environmentalist response. My goal isn't to force ideology on anyone, but instead, to get them to think about what veganism is about. Personally, I've benefitted a great deal by being challenged to think through my beliefs, and sometimes, I've even changed them because of challenges that people have raised. I don't think I'm exceptional, and I like to believe that most people are adult enough to read something and consider it when it comes to the way in which they're living their lives. If they think it is foolish, then fine. I'm just another asshole on the Internet with a blog. ;)
Finally, everyone has great ideas about strategy, and everyone thinks they're an expert. I don't have enough intestinal fortitude to imagine that my way of going about this -- or anything -- is the only way. But I do think these are things that need to be talked about honestly and openly, and I don't see anyone else stepping up to raise these points, probably because everyone in the animal rights movement is so damn touchy about every little thing. Everyone also thinks they're a master strategist when it comes to reaching people because they got their kid brother to go vegan back in '98 after playing some Earth Crisis for them. Well, let me tell you: if any of you are master strategists who can convince masses of people to go vegan, please don't waste your considerable skill and talent commenting on our lowly blog. The animals need you. Go out there and use your fine strategy to get people to go vegan, and quit fucking around over here.
I can take the whacks, and I have an intensely thick skin from years of writing and publishing where no punches are pulled. But I do grow weary of the outgrowth of self-fashioned outreach experts who have thousands of ideas about how to reach the masses when it isn't entirely clear to me that they've done much of anything. Our style is our style; it can't work for everyone, and no style ever will. But at least we're out here doing it, which is more than I can say for most of the people who seem excited to share all their brilliant ideas about outreach around here these days.
fnord0
· 7 months ago
Thank you for the clarifications. Please do not take my response as an attempt to "whack" or look down at the blog post in any way. I was genuinely unsure who the post was meant for, but I understand now that the context was assisting AR vegans in discussing veganism with their envirovegan friends, rather than approaching them directly with this message. The whole thing makes more sense now, and I apologize if my words came out as non-constructive or otherwise negative form of criticism.
Nick
· 7 months ago
I completely agree with you, Bob. Your comparison to the trains running to Auschwitz is dead on.
As for the environment, when are people going to realize that an infinitely expanding system that requires infinite resources (capitalism) cannot possibly, by its very definition, be sustainable? And when are they going to realize that a system which places profit over anything else is fundamentally at odds with the environment? I don't think you're just "dream[ing] big." As Joel Kovel points out, it's either the end of capitalism or the end of the world.
Sour Patch Kid
· 7 months ago
I don't think that telling a people who are vegan for environmental reasons that they're not "real" vegans is constructive in any way. Tell him he's not a believer in animal rights (that's really your fundamental problem with them), but don't tell a person that takes great pains to exclude animal products from their lives that they're not a vegan or "real" vegan. Veganism, despite your self-serving definition, is about action, not the philosophy that usually informs that action. It's what you do, not what you believe, that matters. Although veganism is usually coupled with a belief in animal rights, it doesn't have to be. Yes, animal right activists should still try to get through to the these people, but telling them that what they're already doing is done for the wrong reasons will only piss them off. No one gets to define "what veganism is about at its core" when it comes to philosophy and ethics. You need to realize that belief in animal rights and veganism are two different things. As much as you don't want to admit this (so that the moral high ground is preserved for you and your AR friends) you know it to be true. The existence of envirovegans proves this. And that's why you insult them while telling everyone how happy you are that they exist. P.S. I'm a vegan for AR, environmental and health reasons.
Bob Torres
· 7 months ago
If you think veganism is only about action, you have an odd view of veganism. To take a hypothetical, what if someone were vegan because they believed that white race needed to remain as pure as possible, and thus only consume plant products? Would that person then be an ally to veganism on the whole? I ask this only because I think the disconnect that you identify between theory and praxis is thoroughly misguided, though it does help me to understand why people are so confused within the so-called "movement" and why we're not really accomplishing much of anything.
I argue this point because I think that the action is (and should be) informed by the theory. For example, someone who is vegan only for health reasons has no real reason to be fully vegan 100% of the time. One can eat small amounts of meat or dairy or eggs or fish and still be quite healthy. Similarly, an envirovegan has no real reason to be 100% vegan, because they can probably convince themselves at some point or another that free-range beef is less environmentally harmful than tofu (I have no idea, but I'd guess that there probably are sets of environmental trade-offs for either, if one is thinking solely in those terms). The only philosophical orientation that produces full-fledged veganism is an orientation that recognizes the inherent worth of animals. There's no convincing reason to not be fully vegan if you buy the notion of animal rights.
You may not like the idea, but veganism is and always has been about animals rights. The term itself was coined from an animal rights perspective -- go look it up. Without animal rights, veganism isn't really anything; it is a strange diet. Rather than telling me what i need to realize -- and jeez, some of you people seem so hostile -- you need to realize that divorcing theory from praxis is idiotic. The existence of envirovegans does not prove that veganism and animal rights are not fundamentally linked; it proves that people have not paid attention to what that linkage means, and what the theory is behind their actions. It proves that people are confused about the linkages between morals and living them, and it proves that people don't really have a fundamental understanding of environmental problems.
Truth is, I don't really care who I insult. I'm not in this to protect people's feelings. From the looks of it, many of the anonymous cowards who comment on this blog aren't worried about it either, because in the past two days, I've been called a number of things, and had my motivations questioned -- all because I try to raise some points for discussion and thought.
But with all that said, I really don't know why anyone would imagine that embracing only an animal rights view of veganism is self-serving to me. If you look at it from the most craven possible angle which is that I'm trying to sell more books, the perspective that would make the most sense would be the one that opened the biggest tent, or a perspective such as what you're proposing, where there is no fundamental connection between the practice and theory of veganism. Logically, wouldn't that help me the most if you presume that my goal is to sell the most books? Wouldn't I want to promote the broadest possible interpretation of veganism, and wouldn't I be selling the environmental angle heavily? In short, I have the most to gain by doing exactly the opposite of what I'm doing, which makes your point look, at best, ill-considered. I think you're trying to discredit my argument without having done the hard work of thinking of a rational response that means much of anything.
I'm convinced that you haven't really thought through what you're suggesting, and that's okay: it is the Internet. The stakes for making a critique are low. But to imply that what I'm promoting is self-serving is absurd, and not backed up by any kind of evidence that would be considered passable by any rational person. Coupled with the troubling assertion that what people do is not related to what the action actually means, I'm not sure that I can actually take your critique seriously.
Jacki W.
· 7 months ago
Thank you for a well written post on a topic I frequently flounder at explaining. I have a number of friends who due to reasons completely unrelated to animal rights, have gone completely or partially veg*n. I always support them 100%, but have difficulty explaining exactly why I'm still unsettled by their decision.
"But most of us — barring, perhaps, primitivist anarchists — would argue that the person objecting on environmental grounds is rather missing the larger point here: namely, that genocide is deeply repulsive and horribly wrong because it violates the basic rights that we think all human beings should have." This line in particular condenses much of what I've had trouble articulating in the past.
Vegan Freak was the first book I bought when I made the decision to live the cruelty-free lifestyle, and one I suggest frequently, and quote from (sometimes just in my own head) even more frequently. I'm happy to see, that despite how very good the book is, you're not resting on the subject, and look forward to finding new nuggets of sanity in the revision.
Sour Patch Kid
· 7 months ago
When I said self-serving, I did NOT mean that your motivation is to sell more books, so I'm going to ignore your refutations of a charge I didn't make (but I'm glad you got that off your chest). What I DID mean by self-serving is that when you claim that one cannot be a "real" vegan (I'm paraphrasing, but deny this if you think I'm mischaracterizing what you believe) unless one also has AR as their prime motivation, you're using a definition that, by its very nature, puts theory above, as you say, praxis. It is self-serving because it creates a definition of "real" veganism that just so happens to be the type of veganism that you espouse. It relegates any other type of vegan to fake-vegan status. You clearly see nothing wrong with this, so let me break it down to show you why it's ill-founded.
There are four possible combinations, as I see it. One can either use or not use animal products (including wool, leather etc.) and one can either believe or not believe in animal rights. So the possibilities are as follows:
Uses animal products (+). Believes in animal rights (+). Bob says "Not a vegan at all" Uses animal products (+). Believes in animal rights (-). Bob says "Not a vegan at all" Uses animal products (-). Believes in animal rights (+). Bob says "VEGAN!!!" Uses animal products (-). Believes in animal rights (-). Bob says "Not a "real" vegan"
So, why is it that the person who believes in animal rights AND uses animal products not a vegan, Bob? They have the theory, just not that not-so-important praxis. Is it because what one DOES is actually important? I already know how you're going to answer this: someone who REALLY believes in animal rights would not use animal products. But I don't buy that. Not at all. I know plenty of people who are "guilty omnis" or "guilty vegetarians." I think we all do. They essentially do believe in animal rights, but they're not vegan i.e. they don't have the praxis. Theory and praxis are both important to MOST vegans, but when it comes down to it, the theory is not worth jack if you don't have the praxis. The praxis is what really matters and envirovegans have it.
Your "white race" vegan hypothetical is ridiculous, but I would say that the person would indeed be a vegan, but I would NOT say the person is "an ally to veganism on the whole" because 1) no such person exists 2) this non-existent person has an ideology with no sound basis in fact, whereas environmental vegans are doing it for good reasons with a basis in fact (it's just not the one you prefer to promote). But I question why you feel the need to throw out an absurd hypothetical when we have examples of non-AR vegans, the very topic of your blog post, namely people who are vegan for environmental reasons. Let's stick to them.
Regardless of whether you think someone has a "real reason to be fully vegan 100% of the time," the fact remains that there are non-AR vegans who ARE vegan 100% of the time. You yourself acknowledge "The existence of envirovegans," so some people obviously do, in fact, have non-AR reasons to be vegan 100% of the time. You many not "get" it, but they DO and that's what matters. So how can you claim that "the only philosophical orientation that produces full-fledged veganism is an orientation that recognizes the inherent worth of animals." Huh? Either these people exist or they don't. If they exist, their very existence disproves that statement (unless, of course, you believe that belief matters MORE than praxis).
When you say "The term itself was coined from an animal rights perspective -- go look it up," are you making an argument that the coinage and etymology of a term can define an idea? If so, you don't know much about etymology or intellectual history. Ideas and words change all the time. The person who first put forth a term or idea has no more right to continue to define and delimit what the word or idea means seventy years later. Language changes. Ideas change. Deal with it. This "term was coined" argument proves nothing.
No one, certainly not me, is advocating "divorcing theory from praxis." The fact that you got that from what I wrote illustrates your small way of thinking about veganism. You equate being vegan for non-AR reasons with "divorcing theory from praxis" and that is what is insulting. Do you REALLY think that non-AR vegans don't have their own philosophical or theoretical underpinnings for their veganism? Do you think that they just do it for no good reason at all? You equate not being AR with having no philosophy or theory for one's actions. That's my main problem with people that think veganism and AR are inextricably linked: they think that the AR approach is the ONLY way and anyone that disagrees is not a "real" vegan. You say that "The existence of envirovegans... proves that people have not paid attention to the theory [] behind their actions." No, Bob, what it proves is that not all that people have paid attention to YOUR theory behind YOUR actions. To imply that people who disagree with you have not though about the theory behind their actions is super insulting. And how exactly does "The existence of envirovegans... prove[] that people don't really have a fundamental understanding of environmental problems?" Please explain.
And when you say that you "don't really care who [you] insult," I can understand that, because it is your blog (and I am grateful for the opportunity to provide my opposing viewpoint here). What I don't understand is why you would want to insult a group of people who already have the praxis part down. How does that make for good AR outreach? These people are more likely to ultimately become receptive to an AR viewpoint than almost any other group of non-AR vegans that I can think of.
"You're not obliged to "take [my] critique seriously." But if you assume that I "haven't really thought through what [I'm] suggesting," you're free to just dismiss what I say because it doesn't fit with the way you see things. Anyone that disagrees with you just hasn't though about it, because if they had, then they would agree with you. right? That is what I find insulting and reeking of hubris and disdain for opposing viewpoints.
But, hey, what do I know? I'm just a guy that obviously hasn't really though through what he believes, right? So please dismiss me. Only people that agree with your are thinking, intelligent people with well-thought out positions. Keep telling yourself that. Repeat it like a mantra.
Bob Torres
· 7 months ago
I agree with you that the praxis matters, but the theory and the praxis are intertwined. My contention isn't that envirovegans have NO theory, it is simply that I believe that their theory about why veganism is a rational response to environmental problems is wrong. There's no essential aspect of environmentalism that implies or requires veganism. So, I'm not sure that there is a sound basis in fact that requires veganism as a rational response to environmental degradation. For example, I absolutely hate to say this, but one could probably make a meaningful and factually correct argument that certain kinds of animal exploitation are less ecologically harmful on the whole than veganism. They might even be right, if they're specific enough with regard to bioregional consumption. I'm not going to make this argument for anyone, because I don't want words put in my mouth later about having done so, but it isn't an argument that really requires any great effort. Thus, my point is -- and has always been -- that veganism for this reason misses the actual, pressing issue here, and that going vegan for environmental reasons may, in fact, prove that the said envirovegans do not really even understand the impacts of their dietary choices on the environment. Moreover, being opposed to factory farming for environmental reasons and not eating any animal products as a result is a response to a side-effect of exploitation, not to the exploitation itself. There's obviously theory behind the praxis, but the theory is misguided on multiple levels (both as far as environmentalism is concerned and as far as animal rights are concerned).
While you are right that my citation of the original meaning of the term proves nothing, if you want to talk about the history of ideas, there is a very compelling case to be made for the history of veganism as a response to the problem of animal oppression and exploitation. That you should look up, because the bulk of history when it comes down to it is truly on my side of this argument.
To reiterate: I equate non-AR reasons for being vegan not as theory divorced from praxis but instead as a bad fit between theory and praxis. My entry says as much. I'm not saying that no one has thought about it; obviously they have. I can't believe that you'd argue that any kind of reflexive action in and of itself constitutes a justifiable reason to do something. And to be completely frank, I actually do have a certain level of disdain for views that neglect issues of rights, because I think that view is very dangerous. I'd have the same disdain if someone suggested to me that your rights were unimportant, because I believe that in either case, rights deserve appropriate recognitions. I'm not convinced that because someone has what they believe are good reasons to do something that I must then, therefore, also share in their appreciation of those reasons as "good." In fact, from a moral standpoint, what you suggest implies in a broader sense a space from which no one could ever make any judgment about the actions of another if the other actor had been shown to have had what they believed to have been a good reason for their action. Common sense flies in the face of this, though I suppose if you're off huffing po-mo crap at some liberal arts college somewhere, this kind of logic might make sense.
As for what you do or don't know, I actually have no idea beyond what you've written here because you're comfortably hiding behind a pseudonym, which is fine -- it takes guts to own your positions, because then people can come back later and let you know if you were wrong. Well, I'm not hiding behind anything, and as a result, my training, credentials, and ideas are available for your perusal on this blog, in the books I've had something to do with, in the articles I've published in both academic and nonacademic sources, and probably in other places. Sure, I've said a bunch of stupid shit, and put myself out there on the line a lot, and I've been wrong a lot. I'm not stubborn enough to imagine that people who agree with me are the only intelligent people with well-thought-out positions. If that kind of accusation were true about me as a general matter, I'd not be vegan. So no, I don't think I have the lock on Truth, but I do think that there is a thorough and logically compelling case to be made for animal rights veganism, and that the logic of that case also immediately implies a certain kind of praxis. Though I used to believe otherwise, I'm no longer convinced that there's any purely environmental theory that necessarily implies a praxis of veganism. That -- and only that -- was my point.
And with that, I'm closing the comments, because I really should be finishing up two books, and I don't have time to respond thoughtfully and play these little games. But thanks for the challenges. I wish I could say that they were at least interesting enough to make me think about my position from a new angle, but in all honesty, it was mostly undergrad-league thinking laced with a rather tiring moral relativism. Regardless, good luck with whatever you've got going on, and thanks for the points.
All Comments
like you say, the term vegan is originally coined to recognize & support animal rights. we should stick to this meaning _uncompromisingly_ or else veganism as an AR movement is in serious trouble.
As for the medical treatment, I don't really get your point at all, especially as it relates to what I wrote above. Because I hate wasting effort, I'll just paste in something from the draft of our book, because it explains why your criticism is absurd:
--- begin quote --
The ubiquity of animal products in unavoidable places is a by-product of speciesism – we live in a world in which the social and economic systems provide us with no other real alternatives to these products, some of which are absolutely essential to our health or livelihoods. In this case, because we have no real, viable alternative, we have no choice but to consume the things that we need to live. As a result, it is often difficult to avoid all animal products as a practical matter. Gary Francione addresses this same point in his book Introduction to Animal Rights:
“…assume that we find that the local water company employs child labor and we object to child labor. Are we obligated to die of dehydration because the water company has chosen to violate the rights of children? No, of course not. We would be obligated to support the abolition of this use of children, but we would not be obligated to die. Similarly, we should join together collectively and demand an end to animal exploitation, but we are not obligated to accept animal exploitation or forego any benefits that it might provide.”19
The important point here is to recognize when you’re in a situation in which consuming the product that contains animal ingredients is unavoidable versus when it is avoidable. We can’t stress enough that most people can easily avoid animal products and foods containing them – even when they’re on vacation in Paris. Yet, we don’t want anyone thinking that to be a “good” vegan, they need to forego medicine that has been prescribed to them by a doctor,20 or that they need to give up their daily commute because of the by-product in the tires of the bus they’re riding in.
--- end quote ---
All that said, I especially don't get your point about farmers and animals. I love my dogs. I have no desire to eat any of them when they die. I have the utmost respect for you as a commenter on my blog, but I have no wish to show that respect by injecting you with medications, or exposing your eyes to toxic chemicals until you're blinded by them. You're right: I don't get to define love. But no one who is sane would define anything like any of the foregoing as love. Would you? Honestly? Would you be flattered if your lover said that he or she wished to show her love for you by confining you and testing deadly chemicals on you, and then harvesting your liver to look for toxicity?
Veganism is about animal rights, and it always has been. I'm simply asking people to consider that.
If it's for hard core animal rights vegans (like myself), then you should already know that we already know that veganism for environmental reasons is missing the point. There's no need to preach this message to the choir. We're already there.
If, on the other hand, you were reaching out to "envirovegans" with this piece, then there is little point in telling them "those of us who are vegan to respect the inherent personhood of animals have to [...] see veganism for what it is really about: the rights of non-humans." It's no use talking to them about "founding a long-term movement that seeks to accord animals substantial rights" because currently, that's really and truly not their goal. By forcing this ideology and these goals on them you're giving them an easy excuse to stop reading your article. It’s obviously not written for them. It patronizes them and makes wrong assumptions about their value system.
I think it's a better strategy to acknowledge some RESPECT for these people's beliefs about veganism being the best way to help the environment, and then EXPLAIN to them, slowly, about animal rights, from the ground up. This way, we have a better chance of reaching them than by implying that they are closet AR activists who need to come out and admit that they're really concerned with animal rights more than with the environment.
"If the environment gets people thinking about veganism and moving towards veganism, that’s wonderful, but ultimately, those of us who are vegan to respect the inherent persoonhood of animals have to take an active role in moving envirovegans beyond their mere environmentalism and into getting them to see veganism for what it is really about: the rights of non-humans."
Granted, you're probably right that the presentation could be improved. It almost always can be, and this is just a blog entry, and not one that I've revised much. As for the accusations of "patronizing" and making wrong assumptions, that's just patently wrong. A great deal of the enviroveganism I've seen has been unreflective and rather ignorant of the personhood of animals. Just look up above to Dave's comments for a fine example. He implies that there's love in eating animals. Now, that's anecdotal observation, but it is a bit uncanny.
I don't see where the wrong assumptions are. I'm not convinced that everyone who is vegan for the environment actually is vegan for animal rights reasons, so I'd not suggest that they "come out" of any particular closet. Instead, I'm asking people to remember what veganism is about at its core. This seems relatively straightforward to me. Respecting the inherent personhood of animals may not be the ultimate goal of envirovegans, but I'm not actually convinced that veganism makes complete sense as an environmentalist response. My goal isn't to force ideology on anyone, but instead, to get them to think about what veganism is about. Personally, I've benefitted a great deal by being challenged to think through my beliefs, and sometimes, I've even changed them because of challenges that people have raised. I don't think I'm exceptional, and I like to believe that most people are adult enough to read something and consider it when it comes to the way in which they're living their lives. If they think it is foolish, then fine. I'm just another asshole on the Internet with a blog. ;)
Finally, everyone has great ideas about strategy, and everyone thinks they're an expert. I don't have enough intestinal fortitude to imagine that my way of going about this -- or anything -- is the only way. But I do think these are things that need to be talked about honestly and openly, and I don't see anyone else stepping up to raise these points, probably because everyone in the animal rights movement is so damn touchy about every little thing. Everyone also thinks they're a master strategist when it comes to reaching people because they got their kid brother to go vegan back in '98 after playing some Earth Crisis for them. Well, let me tell you: if any of you are master strategists who can convince masses of people to go vegan, please don't waste your considerable skill and talent commenting on our lowly blog. The animals need you. Go out there and use your fine strategy to get people to go vegan, and quit fucking around over here.
I can take the whacks, and I have an intensely thick skin from years of writing and publishing where no punches are pulled. But I do grow weary of the outgrowth of self-fashioned outreach experts who have thousands of ideas about how to reach the masses when it isn't entirely clear to me that they've done much of anything. Our style is our style; it can't work for everyone, and no style ever will. But at least we're out here doing it, which is more than I can say for most of the people who seem excited to share all their brilliant ideas about outreach around here these days.
As for the environment, when are people going to realize that an infinitely expanding system that requires infinite resources (capitalism) cannot possibly, by its very definition, be sustainable? And when are they going to realize that a system which places profit over anything else is fundamentally at odds with the environment? I don't think you're just "dream[ing] big." As Joel Kovel points out, it's either the end of capitalism or the end of the world.
I argue this point because I think that the action is (and should be) informed by the theory. For example, someone who is vegan only for health reasons has no real reason to be fully vegan 100% of the time. One can eat small amounts of meat or dairy or eggs or fish and still be quite healthy. Similarly, an envirovegan has no real reason to be 100% vegan, because they can probably convince themselves at some point or another that free-range beef is less environmentally harmful than tofu (I have no idea, but I'd guess that there probably are sets of environmental trade-offs for either, if one is thinking solely in those terms). The only philosophical orientation that produces full-fledged veganism is an orientation that recognizes the inherent worth of animals. There's no convincing reason to not be fully vegan if you buy the notion of animal rights.
You may not like the idea, but veganism is and always has been about animals rights. The term itself was coined from an animal rights perspective -- go look it up. Without animal rights, veganism isn't really anything; it is a strange diet. Rather than telling me what i need to realize -- and jeez, some of you people seem so hostile -- you need to realize that divorcing theory from praxis is idiotic. The existence of envirovegans does not prove that veganism and animal rights are not fundamentally linked; it proves that people have not paid attention to what that linkage means, and what the theory is behind their actions. It proves that people are confused about the linkages between morals and living them, and it proves that people don't really have a fundamental understanding of environmental problems.
Truth is, I don't really care who I insult. I'm not in this to protect people's feelings. From the looks of it, many of the anonymous cowards who comment on this blog aren't worried about it either, because in the past two days, I've been called a number of things, and had my motivations questioned -- all because I try to raise some points for discussion and thought.
But with all that said, I really don't know why anyone would imagine that embracing only an animal rights view of veganism is self-serving to me. If you look at it from the most craven possible angle which is that I'm trying to sell more books, the perspective that would make the most sense would be the one that opened the biggest tent, or a perspective such as what you're proposing, where there is no fundamental connection between the practice and theory of veganism. Logically, wouldn't that help me the most if you presume that my goal is to sell the most books? Wouldn't I want to promote the broadest possible interpretation of veganism, and wouldn't I be selling the environmental angle heavily? In short, I have the most to gain by doing exactly the opposite of what I'm doing, which makes your point look, at best, ill-considered. I think you're trying to discredit my argument without having done the hard work of thinking of a rational response that means much of anything.
I'm convinced that you haven't really thought through what you're suggesting, and that's okay: it is the Internet. The stakes for making a critique are low. But to imply that what I'm promoting is self-serving is absurd, and not backed up by any kind of evidence that would be considered passable by any rational person. Coupled with the troubling assertion that what people do is not related to what the action actually means, I'm not sure that I can actually take your critique seriously.
"But most of us — barring, perhaps, primitivist anarchists — would argue that the person objecting on environmental grounds is rather missing the larger point here: namely, that genocide is deeply repulsive and horribly wrong because it violates the basic rights that we think all human beings should have." This line in particular condenses much of what I've had trouble articulating in the past.
Vegan Freak was the first book I bought when I made the decision to live the cruelty-free lifestyle, and one I suggest frequently, and quote from (sometimes just in my own head) even more frequently. I'm happy to see, that despite how very good the book is, you're not resting on the subject, and look forward to finding new nuggets of sanity in the revision.
There are four possible combinations, as I see it. One can either use or not use animal products (including wool, leather etc.) and one can either believe or not believe in animal rights. So the possibilities are as follows:
Uses animal products (+). Believes in animal rights (+). Bob says "Not a vegan at all"
Uses animal products (+). Believes in animal rights (-). Bob says "Not a vegan at all"
Uses animal products (-). Believes in animal rights (+). Bob says "VEGAN!!!"
Uses animal products (-). Believes in animal rights (-). Bob says "Not a "real" vegan"
So, why is it that the person who believes in animal rights AND uses animal products not a vegan, Bob? They have the theory, just not that not-so-important praxis. Is it because what one DOES is actually important? I already know how you're going to answer this: someone who REALLY believes in animal rights would not use animal products. But I don't buy that. Not at all. I know plenty of people who are "guilty omnis" or "guilty vegetarians." I think we all do. They essentially do believe in animal rights, but they're not vegan i.e. they don't have the praxis. Theory and praxis are both important to MOST vegans, but when it comes down to it, the theory is not worth jack if you don't have the praxis. The praxis is what really matters and envirovegans have it.
Your "white race" vegan hypothetical is ridiculous, but I would say that the person would indeed be a vegan, but I would NOT say the person is "an ally to veganism on the whole" because 1) no such person exists 2) this non-existent person has an ideology with no sound basis in fact, whereas environmental vegans are doing it for good reasons with a basis in fact (it's just not the one you prefer to promote). But I question why you feel the need to throw out an absurd hypothetical when we have examples of non-AR vegans, the very topic of your blog post, namely people who are vegan for environmental reasons. Let's stick to them.
Regardless of whether you think someone has a "real reason to be fully vegan 100% of the time," the fact remains that there are non-AR vegans who ARE vegan 100% of the time. You yourself acknowledge "The existence of envirovegans," so some people obviously do, in fact, have non-AR reasons to be vegan 100% of the time. You many not "get" it, but they DO and that's what matters. So how can you claim that "the only philosophical orientation that produces full-fledged veganism is an orientation that recognizes the inherent worth of animals." Huh? Either these people exist or they don't. If they exist, their very existence disproves that statement (unless, of course, you believe that belief matters MORE than praxis).
When you say "The term itself was coined from an animal rights perspective -- go look it up," are you making an argument that the coinage and etymology of a term can define an idea? If so, you don't know much about etymology or intellectual history. Ideas and words change all the time. The person who first put forth a term or idea has no more right to continue to define and delimit what the word or idea means seventy years later. Language changes. Ideas change. Deal with it. This "term was coined" argument proves nothing.
No one, certainly not me, is advocating "divorcing theory from praxis." The fact that you got that from what I wrote illustrates your small way of thinking about veganism. You equate being vegan for non-AR reasons with "divorcing theory from praxis" and that is what is insulting. Do you REALLY think that non-AR vegans don't have their own philosophical or theoretical underpinnings for their veganism? Do you think that they just do it for no good reason at all? You equate not being AR with having no philosophy or theory for one's actions. That's my main problem with people that think veganism and AR are inextricably linked: they think that the AR approach is the ONLY way and anyone that disagrees is not a "real" vegan. You say that "The existence of envirovegans... proves that people have not paid attention to the theory [] behind their actions." No, Bob, what it proves is that not all that people have paid attention to YOUR theory behind YOUR actions. To imply that people who disagree with you have not though about the theory behind their actions is super insulting. And how exactly does "The existence of envirovegans... prove[] that people don't really have a fundamental understanding of environmental problems?" Please explain.
And when you say that you "don't really care who [you] insult," I can understand that, because it is your blog (and I am grateful for the opportunity to provide my opposing viewpoint here). What I don't understand is why you would want to insult a group of people who already have the praxis part down. How does that make for good AR outreach? These people are more likely to ultimately become receptive to an AR viewpoint than almost any other group of non-AR vegans that I can think of.
"You're not obliged to "take [my] critique seriously." But if you assume that I "haven't really thought through what [I'm] suggesting," you're free to just dismiss what I say because it doesn't fit with the way you see things. Anyone that disagrees with you just hasn't though about it, because if they had, then they would agree with you. right? That is what I find insulting and reeking of hubris and disdain for opposing viewpoints.
But, hey, what do I know? I'm just a guy that obviously hasn't really though through what he believes, right? So please dismiss me. Only people that agree with your are thinking, intelligent people with well-thought out positions. Keep telling yourself that. Repeat it like a mantra.
While you are right that my citation of the original meaning of the term proves nothing, if you want to talk about the history of ideas, there is a very compelling case to be made for the history of veganism as a response to the problem of animal oppression and exploitation. That you should look up, because the bulk of history when it comes down to it is truly on my side of this argument.
To reiterate: I equate non-AR reasons for being vegan not as theory divorced from praxis but instead as a bad fit between theory and praxis. My entry says as much. I'm not saying that no one has thought about it; obviously they have. I can't believe that you'd argue that any kind of reflexive action in and of itself constitutes a justifiable reason to do something. And to be completely frank, I actually do have a certain level of disdain for views that neglect issues of rights, because I think that view is very dangerous. I'd have the same disdain if someone suggested to me that your rights were unimportant, because I believe that in either case, rights deserve appropriate recognitions. I'm not convinced that because someone has what they believe are good reasons to do something that I must then, therefore, also share in their appreciation of those reasons as "good." In fact, from a moral standpoint, what you suggest implies in a broader sense a space from which no one could ever make any judgment about the actions of another if the other actor had been shown to have had what they believed to have been a good reason for their action. Common sense flies in the face of this, though I suppose if you're off huffing po-mo crap at some liberal arts college somewhere, this kind of logic might make sense.
As for what you do or don't know, I actually have no idea beyond what you've written here because you're comfortably hiding behind a pseudonym, which is fine -- it takes guts to own your positions, because then people can come back later and let you know if you were wrong. Well, I'm not hiding behind anything, and as a result, my training, credentials, and ideas are available for your perusal on this blog, in the books I've had something to do with, in the articles I've published in both academic and nonacademic sources, and probably in other places. Sure, I've said a bunch of stupid shit, and put myself out there on the line a lot, and I've been wrong a lot. I'm not stubborn enough to imagine that people who agree with me are the only intelligent people with well-thought-out positions. If that kind of accusation were true about me as a general matter, I'd not be vegan. So no, I don't think I have the lock on Truth, but I do think that there is a thorough and logically compelling case to be made for animal rights veganism, and that the logic of that case also immediately implies a certain kind of praxis. Though I used to believe otherwise, I'm no longer convinced that there's any purely environmental theory that necessarily implies a praxis of veganism. That -- and only that -- was my point.
And with that, I'm closing the comments, because I really should be finishing up two books, and I don't have time to respond thoughtfully and play these little games. But thanks for the challenges. I wish I could say that they were at least interesting enough to make me think about my position from a new angle, but in all honesty, it was mostly undergrad-league thinking laced with a rather tiring moral relativism. Regardless, good luck with whatever you've got going on, and thanks for the points.