Though I have not been posting new entries, I have been regularly updating the sidebar documents filed under "Perspective and Approach". These updates will continue as warranted, and similar new documents will be crafted over time. Everyday I attempt to read, think, talk, and/or write (hopefully all four) about our relationship with the other sentient beings of this planet. There is at least one new entry about veganism well underway. For those unable to abide my sloth, please check out the various external resources within the sidebar. For now, I would like to delve into lines of thought surrounding three topics: welfarism, militancy, and language.
1) Integral to the
welfarist approach, particularly (though not exclusively) as practiced by the P-TA corporation, are ideas about who the "enemy" is, and what constitutes "success" when it comes to relations with the public. The "enemy" is cast as exploitive industries generally, as well as specific producers of exploitive products. This helps to explain the top-down nature of their approach, focus on regulations, and willingness to promote corporations that will implement meager husbandry adjustments [1]. A "success" at communication is nearly
any tactic that garners attention or produces hype — steps toward increased revenues. This helps to explain the focus on claiming "Victory!", reluctance to unequivocally promote veganism, and willingness to reinforce sexist attitudes by embracing the strategic objectification of human females [2].
My perspective is that
speciesism drives our exploitive relationship with nonhumans; that exploitive industries exist only because non-vegans demand the products and services they provide. Furthermore, corporations are shielded from meaningful "attack" because the law protects their interest in using "their" nonhumans with a property right, one fundamental and long-standing aspect of Western jurisprudence. Attempting to regulate industry sets up a futile balancing act between the corporate interest in their property, and the properties in question (sentient beings), who legally have no interests and are thereby things — viable resources [3]. Efforts at regulating industrial exploiters equate to: legal person (with economic interests) thought to satisfy a social demand
versus legal property (with no interests by definition) thought provide a social service by being used.
Attention and hype are not intrinsically valuable. Public exposure should never come at the cost of appealing to our worst ideologies and validating the dynamics of domination. Such communication is incompatible with dignified, ethically-grounded, hearts and minds based appeals. My view of success is non-violent, non-sexist, and non-racist education about the moral imperative of veganism that resonates with an audience. The
abolitionist approach works from the bottom up, and diminishes demand, by poisoning the roots of the problem: viewing nonhumans as things.
2) Militant campaigns employ tactics along the lines of violence, property destruction, harassment, and/or intimidation [4]. Like welfarist efforts at reform, their approach is top-down. Militants hack at the branches and leaves of nonhuman oppression: institutional practices. Their tactics cannot be applied coherently when only a fraction of the population is vegan and
exploitation permeates society. Almost every human and business that militants daily interact with are participants in nonhuman exploitation.
Militants grasp at coherency with their target selection — institutions that can appear uniquely heinous. Single-issue campaigns result, usually anti-vivisection or anti-fur [5]. These attempts to differentiate their target fail. Vivisection labs, "fur farms", and slaughterhouses are all equally terrible and rest upon the same bed of speciesism as every form of nonhuman exploitation. For the sake of argument, suppose the nonhumans at vivisection labs and "fur farms" did experience more suffering than any other domesticate. Focusing on vivisection and "fur" within this scenario would be more confusing than at present because it would more strongly suggest that treatment is the primary problem. The rights movement rejects all nonhuman use, irrespective of how "cruel" any particular use is.
Conditioned by speciesism, society almost always values human interests (even when trivial) over nonhuman interests (even when significant). Two obstacles block positive shifts in perspective among public onlookers. First, individuals must get past, without being dismayed or outraged by, the tactics themselves. For those few capable of this step, their attention is logically drawn toward the "cruelty" of specific uses, not use
per se. If by some miracle, an onlooker to militancy did thereafter reject the moral legitimacy of fur or vivisection, their daily lives and participation with exploitation would remain nearly stagnant — they would not be vegans.
Two concluding points. Militancy is necessarily single-issue, for if not, it would be reduced to senseless omnidirectional aggression. Militants must have isolable targets that can be characterized as particularly horrific to justify their aggressive tactics and bypass the first obstacle.
3) "Why not just say 'animals'?"Human is an animal species, thus "other animals" or "nonhuman animals" are more accurate than "animals" alone. However, phrases like "sentient nonhumans" and "other sentient beings" are even more precise. Nonhuman could refer to anything that is literally not human. Qualifying nonhuman with sentient limits the scope to beings with interests — those with moral significance.
The five kingdoms are continually being challenged and adjusted: originally there were just two, and eventually an alternative classification system might be substituted [6]. Invertebrate species, at least some of which are very likely not sentient, compose the majority of "the animal kingdom". With the category of animal in flux, and not tied to sentience, it is ultimately inappropriate. Our language should reflect where we draw the line: between entities with moral significance, and those without; between sentient beings and non-sentient things. The line must be moralistic, not taxonomical.
The word "animal" also carries the ideological baggage of speciesism. For example, phrases at the tip of every Americans' tongue include: "treat me/them/her/he/us like animals" and "she/he/they acted like (an) animal(s)". Human identity is often constructed around the notion that we are somehow above the amorphous animal
other — that animality excludes humanity. Of course, this runs contrary to the lessons of evolution: humans are deficient relative to many nonhumans, and no human traits are qualitatively unique, as they are all shared to some degree by nonhumans.
Simply using "animals" is often quite convenient: it is easier to write, and can make for simpler verbal discussions. But language plays an important role in breaking the mold of an irrational human/animal distinction that bears speciesist overtones. Substituting for "animals" can generate powerful cognitive dissonance by sparking crucial questions about humanness.
Endnotes[1] P-TA recently made a deal with KFC in Canada. Roger Yates provides commentary: entry one and entry two. Mary Martin explored a specific P-TA promotion of KFC: part one and part two. Gary Francione commented here.
[2] Here are recent examples of welfarist corporations utilizing the "Victory!" claim: P-TA, HSUS, IDA, and COK. Here are recent examples where P-TA has commodified women to further their ends: Amanda Beard, Jenna Jameson, Eva Mendes. These links are provided for documentation purposes only. I do not suggest spending any time exploring these websites.
[3] See the book "Animals, Property, and the Law" by Gary Francione. Alternatively, watch this video presentation based upon that work.
[4] Associations such as SHAC, ALF, and ARM are specific examples.
[5] Gary Francione looks at single-issue campaigns here. Also reference his discussions of moral schizophrenia.
[6] See this article: "The Decline and Fall of the Animal Kingdom"
Download (PDF)
Over the past weeks and months, Gary Francione has generated some noteworthy items. 
