A house divided??

[Tim Gier]

James McWilliams, Ph. D., Associate Professor of history at Texas State University and author of numerous peer-reviewed articles and books including Just Food: Where locavores get it wrong and how we can eat truly responsibly, is vegan and maintains a blog about veganism and animal rights called Eating Plants.

On his blog, he is writing a series of posts under the heading: A House Divided?: Abolitionists vs. New Welfarists. His first two entries are here and here.

By way of introduction to his purpose, he writes:

These groups do not care for each other. Their constant battles, however, are ultimately harmful and, at times, more about themselves than the animals they aim to help. I have contacts and friends in both camps, and what I find most encouraging about the gulf that separates them is that there’s a potential bridge to be built between them. Building that bridge starts with a basic shared premise, one that separates members of both camps from society at large: they both care deeply, and have shown themselves fiercely dedicated, to improving the lives of animals.

This is a strong bond. And it is on this shared premise that I will spend much of the next few weeks trying to hammer out an argument showing that new welfarism and abolitionism can and should be complementary approaches to a shared vision.

I'm looking forward to the rest of the series from Prof. McWilliams, it would be good to for our house not to be divided, but to work in unison toward what should be our common goal.

[Tim Gier]

In the second installment of the series, McWilliams writes:

Abolitionism is essentially a principle while welfarism is essentially a process. I don’t want to overstate this distinction. I’m well aware that abolitionists promote a process: vegan education. I’m also aware that welfarists (sort of) promote a principle: improving the lives of animals within preexisting systems of oppression.  But these areas are where both abolitionism and welfarism are at their most vulnerable.

Here’s why. Abolitionism’s process–its call for an immediate and complete transition to veganism—has no historical precedent. I see no evidence suggesting that this approach, in its extreme form, will ever work in reaching mainstream consumers. (It’s a perfect being the enemy of the good kind of thing.) By the same token, welfarism’s soft adherence to “principle”—improving the lives of animals (within preexisting confines)—fails to provide an accompanying articulation of the ultimate goal of liberation: the end of animal exploitation. Too often this message gets lost in disingenuous shouts of “victory” (usually made with a donation request) that distract us from the goal of abolitionism.

[Tim Gier]

The third installment has just been posted: http://eatingplantsdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/a-house-divided-...

[Tim Gier]

The fourth installment: http://eatingplantsdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/a-house-divided-...

As I’ve been suggesting in previous posts, social movements–or any sort of coordinated reform effort–thrive when they clearly state the ultimate goal. This is what makes the work of Gary Francione (see last post), and all vegan abolitionists, so integral to the cause of animal liberation. The abolitionist approach declares with forthright candor that humans have no right to own and exploit animals. We should stop now. This message is absolute and inspiring, not to mention central to what ethical vegans hope to accomplish.  We’re useless without it.

But, as I’ve also been suggesting, the drumbeat of principle, noble as it may be, is not enough. A process of reform–one that’s pragmatic and accessible to everyday consumers–must accompany and interact with the stated ideal. With billions upon billions of animals unnecessarily exploited every year, and with most consumers rarely giving the matter a moment’s consideration, calling for the immediate abolition of animal exploitation strikes me as unrealistic as an exclusive process of change. Instead, it must be enjoined with a gradualist approach, one that seeks to improve the welfare of animals within preexisting systems while, at the same time, articulating the ultimate goal–the principle–toward which gradual improvements are working.  As I’ve noted, this will require compromise.

[Tim Gier]

Prof. McWilliams summarizes his thinking thus far: http://eatingplantsdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/a-house-divided-...