|
Matt Ball
Does working for or supporting welfare
measures harm the longer-term goal of bringing about
liberation? See also: "A
Single Step" by Peter Singer and Bruce Friedrich.
Contents
Expanding
the Floor of the Cage
The Brazilian Landless Farmers movement has a slogan:
"Expand the floor of the cage before you try
to break out." It is a way of saying that activists
should try to improve the status quo in order to have
more room in which to work towards a permanent solution.
This belief -- that one can support efforts that improve
welfare and increase awareness while working for liberation
-- marks one position within the animal liberation
movement, and is characterized by achievements such
as McDonald's
recent agreement to improve the treatment of chickens
and possibly other animals. Another common position
is summarized as "rights first, rights only,
rights über alles."
The Lessons of History:
If Abolitionists had been Absolutists
While we all understand the desire to embrace and
advocate pure-vegan ideals, this shouldn't stop us
from studying the history of social movements and
reevaluating our tactics. Successful social movements
-- abolitionism, the women's suffrage movement, the
civil rights movement, the gay rights movement --
have pushed for reforming the current system while
working towards ultimate goals.
For example, take abolitionism and the subsequent
civil rights movement in the U.S. They were built
through successive improvements in the standing of
black Americans. Each improvement, each piecemeal
reform, elevated the status of blacks and brought
greater confidence and experience to organizers, allowing
them to fight for further entitlements. If the movement
had rejected all reforms, it's unlikely that it ever
could have built enough momentum to succeed. Imagine
if Frederick Douglass had argued "Equal voting
rights or no rights at all. Equal representation in
government and business, or no representation at all."
Imagine if Lincoln had refused to issue the Emancipation
Proclamation because it didn't guarantee an end to
prejudice or segregation. Douglass, Lincoln, and others
were cognizant enough of political realities to see
that such positions would alienate the mass of the
population, condemning abolition to failure.
The same fate awaits any movement that does not
seize reforms and strive to educate when opportunities
arise. Absolutist movements attract only those already
converted to the cause, and remain confined to a small
cadre of dedicated but isolated activists. By settling
for "nothing short of total liberation,"
many groups have condemned themselves to acrimonious
anonymity and burnout. They cut themselves off from
consideration by the public, and do not provide any
incentive for change within the animal industries.
More diverse organizations, on the other hand, have
attracted broad memberships of vegetarians and nonvegetarians.
They achieve results because they can reach out to
those who may not share all of their opinions, and
are willing to work with businesses. These results,
in turn, bring in new activists who gain confidence
and experience. We should recognize, then, that individuals,
businesses, and society progress towards a more compassionate
ethic gradually, through successive stages of increased
concern for animals.
"It
must get worse before it gets better"
Some advocates argue that animal liberation is a
unique social justice goal, and oppose welfare reforms
because they believe people will choose not to go
vegan if they learn that animals are being treated
"better." For example, if the public hears
that McDonald's will be getting their eggs from producers
that keep their laying hens in bigger cages and no
longer force-molt them, fewer people will alter their
purchasing patterns than had the agreement not been
reached and publicized.
Although this argument may seem to have a certain
logic, the evidence indicates that reforms draw the
attention of nonvegetarians to the issue, persuading
many to reconsider their ethics and actions. Animal
groups then use their victories to gain visibility
and push for further reforms. In this way, welfare
measures tend to be a slippery slope toward abolition,
not away from it.
European countries -- particularly the United Kingdom
-- are a counterexample to the "it must get worse
before it gets better" argument. Animals are
treated far better there and vegetarianism
is more widespread. There are more vegetarian restaurants,
and nonvegetarian restaurants have more vegetarian
options. The advances in animal welfare have given
both the UK welfare and abolition movements
confidence and momentum. And the attention paid to
animal welfare in business practices and legislation
has increased
the public's interest in how their food is produced.
The same could become true in the US. Reforming
a company like McDonald's can initiate a domino effect
throughout the industry. Competitors now have a greater
incentive to match and exceed McDonald's reforms,
thereby forcing industrywide improvements in the living
and dying conditions for all animals. No company wants
to be singled out as the "cruel one" by
a widespread and well-supported campaign.
More importantly, when the industries that rely
on animal exploitation raise the issue of humane treatment,
it receives far more serious consideration from the
public than animal advocates and partisans could ever
hope to achieve alone. Once the companies themselves
grant that animals have interests, it becomes harder
to justify using them for food, regardless of specific
conditions.
We have sympathy for those who believe McDonald's
is the "enemy," and claim we have to "destroy
them". But McDonald's is simply the embodiment
of consumer demand. Vilifying a faceless corporate
entity as the antagonist distracts from what should
be the core concern -- the suffering of animals --
and from the root cause of this suffering -- the choices
of consumers.
Obviously, McDonald's is not going to become vegan
tomorrow. In the meantime, we can help lessen animals'
suffering by supporting reforms and consumer education
while simultaneously advancing abolition by promoting
veganism. If we target nonvegan companies no matter
what, they have no incentive to change their farming
practices or add more vegan alternatives to their
menus. This leads to more suffering, and more difficulty
in people going veg.
Purity or Progress
Why else would we not support welfare reforms? Perhaps
so as not to "compromise our principles."
But this isn't the case unless our guiding principle
is "Never, under any circumstances, work with
nonvegan people or businesses." Why would someone
hold that principle above all else, especially when
it is at odds with another that seems more fundamental
and defensible: "Work to reduce animal suffering"?
Of course, this is not to say that everyone should
pursue welfarist measures. We believe that the way
to lessen the most suffering in the most expedient
and efficacious manner is to promote vegetarianism
and veganism.
Conclusions
If you were being tortured 24 hours a day in a prison
cell, would you want an absolutist on your side? Would
you ask that no one on the outside try to stop your
torture because it has to be "freedom or nothing
at all"? Would you believe that the worse your
treatment and the greater your suffering, the closer
you would be to freedom? Or would you prefer that
someone bring to light your circumstances and enact
reforms that could significantly reduce your suffering,
while also working toward your liberation?
While our ultimate goal is to end animal exploitation,
we must support the reduction of suffering as much
as possible along the way. We should encourage any
action that will help animals, even if all it does
is make their lives a bit less miserable or their
deaths a bit less cruel. We don't stop there,
of course, but we can't pass up the chance to make
improvements for animals simply because it's not enough.
Subscribe to Vegan
Outreach enewsletter to keep up on events
|
