Below is Gary Francione's pithy response to a "happy meat" peddler.
From Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach:
Earlier today, Anna and I went to Whole Foods...On Sundays, there is an outdoor market in the Whole Foods parking lot. Local vendors sell fruits, vegetables, baked goods--and animal flesh and products.
One vendor had decorated her "organic meat" stall with pictures of her "free-range" chickens, pigs, and cows. We stopped to look at the pictures. I pointed out to her that there were no pictures of the slaughtering process.
"Oh, well we slaughter our chickens on the premises and our cows and pigs go to a slaughter facility that is only six miles away. They don't stay overnight and we try to make it as stress free as possible."
Another shopper had appeared and said, "I feel so much better about buying this my meat from farms like this."
The vendor remarked, "Oh, yes, these animals are our dear friends."
I responded, politely but seriously: "That's an odd thing to say; I hope that you don't treat your other 'dear friends' this way." (emphasis added)
The vendor laughed. She thought I was joking.
"These animals are our dear friends." Think about that. Think about what terrible confusion such a statement reveals.
This is where the happy meat/animal products movement is leading us.
This is where the PETA-KFC controlled-atmosphere killing campaign is taking us.
We are moving backward. (emphasis added)
Go vegan. It's the baseline of the abolitionist movement and is nonviolence in action.
Such a response could be employed when discussing ethical veganism with those individuals who argue that they "love" their horse companions while simultaneously forcing them to compete with others in events that are inherently dangerous. As these events occur for the humans' financial gain and "entertainment" alone, the horse is forced to accept their potential harm and death because we enjoy doing so. Therefore, this begs the response: "I hope you don't love your mother in this way."
To what extent we are "moving backward" is contestable in my opinion. However, as an anecdotal matter, I have experienced first-hand Mr. Francione's fear: "Humanely" murdered nonhumans are more palatable - morally speaking - to otherwise compassionate - and therefore potential vegans and vegetarians - humans, which directly challenges the realization of our end: A vegan world.
Mr. Francione assumes a sort of hierarchy of importance. We have a) the premise: suffering is inherently evil, and b) the conclusion: a vegan world. Abolitionists often exist in the conclusion while forgetting the premise as a very thoughtful individual once said. Therefore, efforts to reduce suffering, which is an empirical matter of course ("Does X actually reduce suffering?"), are derided because they don't sufficiently address the conclusion: ending the property status of nonhumans. I agree in the abstract. However, in the practical, we cannot forget the suffering. Indeed, this, in my opinion, accounts for Mr. Francione's unjustifiable challenge to direct action campaigns by the ALF, for example. As such, holistic approaches are defensible and necessary.
I wouldn't, however, argue that Mr. Francione is harmful to the AR movement in his manifest divisiveness. This discourse is necessary and has been an important impetus for animal welfare organizations such as PETA to articulate an explicitly abolitionist platform: "Animals are not ours to X, Y, and Z." That means nonhumans are not our property.
The effectiveness of PETA turns on the empirical matter motioned above and on the extent of the issue raised by Mr. Francione about "happy meat" = people feel better about killing nonhumans unnecessarily. Therefore, criticize and disagree; substantive dialogue is important. Perhaps Mr. Francione is correct and the death and suffering of nonhumans is more acceptable today than ever before, which suggests the failure of welfarism. Could be true, indeed. But veal crates, gestation crates and battery cages are being phased-out as well. This may only lead to more rational measures to exploit nonhumans, but it allows us to broach the subject on a national platform, which is important. Coupled with "new environmentalism," and informed, principled information campaigns, it could be a paradigm shift.
I'm not implying that the abolitionists, a group that I self-identify with, forget the suffering. I am saying, explicitly, however, that they prioritize the conclusion and thus fail to truly consider all the wretched evil on the farm and in the lab.
Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox
Someone who agrees with the abolitionist view is not per se against incremental changes aimed at reducing suffering. Of course, incremental changes and campaigns are essential as are campaigns that deal with suffering and the reduction thereof. The abolitionist philosophy is just a little more selective when choosing what sort of campaigns to endorse.
Basically, the message is: as activists we have limited resources but we have an abundance of ideas and approaches for campaigns to educate and to reduce suffering. We ought to pick the ones that truly are consistent with our beliefs and not ones that implicitly or explicitly further endorse discrimination and exploitation (as many campaigns actually do).
The various animal advocacy groups can hardly take all the credit for what's happening with veal crates and battery eggs and such. They are on their way out not the least because they're a bad idea economically. The industry is slowly (and grudgingly) realizing that animals are not machines after all, and with all things considered, not confining them this intensively may be a better deal. Even the HSUS and Peta sell the idea of "humane meat" to the manufacturers mainly on economic grounds.
Thanks for the comment! I love your blog.
Quote:
“We ought to pick the ones that truly are consistent with our beliefs and not ones that implicitly or explicitly further endorse discrimination and exploitation (as many campaigns actually do).”
And therein lies the problem implied in Mr. Francione’s response quoted above: These campaigns take us backward because they defend speciesism implicitly, which confuses our own message about the irrationality of speciesism and the unethical paradigm of animals-as-property. I think you have a point up to a point.
Take a hypothetical: In a society that condones rape, wherein violence against women is the norm, we are conditioned to participate unthinkingly, generations that preceded us acted similarly, etc. In such a society, legislation outlawing cutting off noses during rape implies a justification for the act of rape itself for its singular focus (cutting off the nose as opposed to the institution); however, if framed within a context of “Rape treats women as property, which is morally indefensible,” this legislation is appropriate because it addresses the premise that suffering is inherently evil. Therefore, abolitionists who would claim that such legislation isn’t sufficient, or is confused ethically exist in the conclusion alone: Rape ought to be outlawed. They do this, however, at the expense of the actual pain and misery.
A campaign to end the cutting off of noses may imply that rape without cutting off the nose is ethical and therefore doesn’t comport to the abolitionist philosophy. But without such legislation, given the context of the hypothetical society in which we exist, rape + cutting off noses will continue to be the general norm, albeit with a handful of converts to the camp of “Women aren’t our property.”
It’s this reasoning that I challenge. Mr. Francione’s empirical arguments about effectiveness may be accurate. However, challenging PETA or HSUS in general isn’t called-for in my opinion because I believe they are explicitly framing their discourse in abolitionist terms, while pursuing general legislation to reduce suffering today.
As a child, I can remember going to steak houses with happy cow puppets given out to children with other things such as happy cow cartoon characters being excited about the steak house.
In my own area omnivore families take their children to a local animal sanctuary before going to eat the same animals.
The cognitive dissonance between killing animals while caring for them existed before "happy meat".
Happy meat labels need to stop, but the underlying cognitive dissonance about killing the animals, cruelty reduced or not is the root problem IMHO
That is an excellent point BEFOREWISDOM.
Barna wrote: "the abolitionist view is not per se against incremental changes aimed at reducing suffering"
You're absolutely correct.
However, the loudest proponent of abolitionism, Gary Francione, is actively against some specific suffering-based incremental changes. He actively promotes voting NO on Prop 2 in California in order to "send the HSUS a message." He didn't say "don't vote." He didn't say "vote yes, but send them a letter." He actively encourages people to resist incrementalism.
source: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?p=165
Correct, Elaine. It is Francione's reasoning that I challenge here.
Elaine,
This is the text of Prop II: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/2007-08-09_07-0041_Initiative.pdf
Perhaps you can explain what you expect this to do and precisely how is marks an incremental step toward animal rights?
RY
On Proposition 2, Wikipedia states: "Proposition 2, or The California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act [10] as it was previously known until the Secretary of State amended it to Standards for Confining Farm Animals initiative statute[11], is a modest measure that ends the cruel and inhumane confinement of specified animals on factory farms, ending the practice of forcing them to spend their entire lives in spaces so small that they are physically unable to turn around, lie down, or fully extend their legs and/or wings. The initiative does not require that they be kept outside of cages or live outdoors. It simply requires more space per animal in the cages/pens which already house them".
If we ever want to understand the abolitionist position on the general failure of animal welfarism, we need to look critically at what animal welfarists tell us. Have you noticed how FEW pictures there are of the use systems the welfarists are promoting? One might expect many if they really are a marked overall improvement. Instead, we find scandals involving RSPCA-approved facilities which the RSPCA admit they cannot properly monitor, and groups like Peaceful Prairie end up rescuing 'cage-free' birds that look no different to battery chickens.
RY
I think you make good points, Roger. As I said in the original post, my challenge to Francione turns on the empirical matter: Do these measures actually reduce suffering? You seem to have provided an answer: No. Therefore, although I still maintain that some animal rights activists emphasize the end at the expense of the actual suffering, Prop. 2, upon some consideration, seems to exemplify Francione's central dispute with welfarism.
Thanks for participating Roger.