Vegan vs. Animal Advocate by Erik Marcus (vegan.com)

[Tim Gier]

You know what might be the single most effective way for the animal protection movement to gain ground? Having more people think of themselves, not as vegans, but as animal advocates.

Being vegan is about cutting the harm your lifestyle choices inflict on animals to as close to zero as possible. As a vegan, the benefit you’re delivering to animals is really only the sum of the harm you’d personally be causing if you weren’t vegan.

But being an animal advocate, and not simply a vegan, is orders of magnitude more significant. Here, you’re attacking the problem of the tens of billions of animals being factory farmed and slaughtered worldwide. Your capacity to create change is limited only by your talent and commitment.

I’m probably as devoted to following a vegan lifestyle as a person can be, yet I rarely think of being vegan as part of my identity. Instead, I think of my identity—and my purpose in life—as being an animal advocate. It’s just so much more powerful.

What about you? How do you identify yourself? Would shifting your self-identification enhance your commitment to animal protection?

Original posted on July 28, 2010 here.

[Carolyn Bailey]

What is an "animal advocate"? Is one who eats as many animals as possible, but walks dogs to earn a living an "animal advocate"? Is one who participates in horse racing, but doesn't eat mammals an "animal advocate"? Is one who, like Prof. Colin Blakemore describes himself, an "animal advocate" because he chooses not to hunt other animals himself and not eat certain individuals, whilst being the most prominent proponent of vivisection in the world? 

It seems that Erik Marcus is making more excuses for humans who choose not to take veganism seriously, but still wish to feel good about themselves and label themselves with a term or phrase that allows them to believe they are making some sort of significant, positive difference in the world. 

Thinking of oneself as a horse-racing, chickens-eating, cowskin-wearing, aquarium-attending, dairy-consuming person who happens to advocate on behalf of the whales in the Southern Ocean (whilst eating fishes and squids) for a few months each year, "might be the single most effective way for the animal protection movement to gain ground"? Really? Oddly enough, I disagree with such a ridiculous, statement, which not only shows a poverty of ambition, but, in my opinion, a need to make excuses for those who use the "feel good" notion of calling oneself an advocate for others, whilst continuing to exploit those very others. 

[Monique]

I don’t think that walking dogs to make a living, or refraining from eating mammals, or choosing not to hunt would make you an “animal advocate”.  None of them involve any actual advocacy.  And I don’t get the sense that this is what he is talking about.

I think the core of Marcus’s argument is in this line:  “Would shifting your self-identification enhance your commitment to animal protection?”

Maybe he has a point.   I’ve met dozens of people who are committed to veganism, but only a few of them are interested in any kind of advocacy.  However, real and meaningful social change will take more than baking a dish for a potluck, or having philosophical discussions with other vegans.  These activities may be helpful to the vegans involved, but they are not engaging the attention of everyone else.

To effect social change we need to get that attention from everyone else.  We need to keep public awareness focused on the uncomfortable issues of animal exploitation that they prefer not to think about.  So I’m thinking that Marcus might be right.  It just might be the most effective thing for more people to self-identify as animal advocates, stop focusing solely on their own lifestyle, and start reminding the rest of the world that non-humans have interests too.

[Lucas Hayes]

He rarely thinks of being vegan as part of his identity but solely runs the site, vegan.com.

 

When one thinks of veganism as merely a consumer activity, then I can see it having little value. However, if one thinks of veganism as a movement to create a culture of people that strive to meet their needs in non-exploitive ways out of a principled stand against exploitation, I don't think the importance of that can be minimized in such a way.

 

And yea, what Carolyn said.

[Lucas Hayes]

Vegans are animal advocates in the sense that vegans "support and promote the interests of another" (merriam webster). Anytime, in every day living, that a vegan is invited to partake in an activity that involves or involved the violation of the basic interests of animals and declines to participate, or even give approval, on ethical grounds, that vegan is certainly being an animal advocate. Therefore, it's my view that vegans are always, at all times, animal advocates, whereas a non-vegan who happens to show up to every demo is only, at best, a part-time (as well as selective), animal advocate.

 

[Tim Gier]

Does the simple fact that I am not rapist make me an advocate for the cause of ending rape?  I think it does not.  

[Carolyn Bailey]

If 99% of the population were rapists, and raping was considered not only morally justifiable, but necessary in order to survive by the majority of humanity, then removing yourself from that dominant paradigm, or opting out of such a system, would be signalling to oneself and one's community that that system is not a good one and that others ought to opt out.

One would be making both a social and political statement that rape was wrong and that they were not willing to take part in such exploitation. 

One may say that living rape-free was therefore a social and political practice of rebellion to and revulsion at a system that must and should be reviled and rebelled against. 

So, yes, the simple fact that you are not a rapist in a society which condones and supports rape, would, in my opinion, make you an advocate for the cause of ending rape under such circumstances. 

[Carolyn Bailey]

I agree, Lucas. It seems bizarre that the sole owner of the website vegan.com spends so much time trying to remove himself from being referred to or recognised as vegan. 

Lucas Hayes said:

He rarely thinks of being vegan as part of his identity but solely runs the site, vegan.com.

 

When one thinks of veganism as merely a consumer activity, then I can see it having little value. However, if one thinks of veganism as a movement to create a culture of people that strive to meet their needs in non-exploitive ways out of a principled stand against exploitation, I don't think the importance of that can be minimized in such a way.

 

And yea, what Carolyn said.

[Carolyn Bailey]

Uptight Primate:

In my bid to provoke rational discourse and to engage in the spirit of discussion, I did indeed ask what an "animal advocate" was. I don't believe I did, and certainly it was not my intention to, go on to "rubbish the entire concept" of being an animal advocate. Individuals such as Prof. Blakemore and my neighbour who happens to walk dogs in order to make a living refer to themselves as animal advocates, and rightly so. I'm not sure how you interpret that to be "rubbishing the entire concept". 

Of course, living vegan is an understanding that one wishes to live their lives without participating in any exploitation or oppression of other individuals. I believe that if one chooses to live a vegan lifestyle, referring to oneself as a vegan is a positive move. I think language and clarity of terms is important. 

You are mistaken when you say that I have used this discussion or any other discussion as a "means to boost my own "perfect" idealisms". I would obviously have to have some concept of what my "own perfect idealism" was in order to do such a thing, which I don't. I would also have to wish to stifle intelligent and rational dialogue in order to wish to do such a thing, which, again, I do not. 

I appreciate that you may disagree with my comment, and even take offence with my opinion that Erik Marcus' suggestion is ridiculous. ARZone welcomes your opinion, and your disagreement, as we aim to continue to provoke rational discourse and challenge our members to think critically and consider the opinions and theories of those with whom they disagree. 

Uptight Primate said:

 

Carolyn you ask what an animal advocate is - and then go on to rubbish the whole concept because the term has been misappropriated by Colin Blakemore and others. This seems to be standard procedure on ARZone – misinterpret discussion points in order to revert to type. I do wish people would try to engage in the spirit of discussions instead of using them all as a means to boost your own 'perfect' idealisms. That being vegan is not the same as being a campaigner (or advocate) is clearly the case (with around 150k vegans in the UK and no more than 1,500 turning out for marches, it seems lots of vegans maybe do not consider themselves activists/advocates etc) – so why the problem with someone wishing to discuss the implications?

The actual meaning of advocate: a person who speaks or writes in support or defence of a person, cause, etc.

I’m vegan and I’m a campaigner – I have no problems calling myself an advocate. I know Colin Blakemore is lying – it’s that straightforward.

Maybe ARZone should take this statement down?

"There is no one fact, no one argument that wins the day, for or against. Animal rights is a complicated issue. No one, partisan or foe, should expect a simple answer. Our guiding principle should be: let all voices be free to speak and to speak without interruption. After all, deciding where the truth lies takes time." ~ Professor Tom Regan, Empty Cages (2004), page 63. 

As it does not seem to remotely reflect the reality of discussions on this forum.

I often flit by ARZ to see if anything interesting is being discussed and almost always leave disappointed and a bit embarrassed by it. It’s such a shame that the forum is dominated by a few commentators who tend to be very negative, angry and rude – and wholly unable to really engage with or understand the points being raised.

Does ARZone do more harm to our cause than good?

 

[Carolyn Bailey]

Uptight Primate: 

You said: 

Maybe ARZone should take this statement down?

"There is no one fact, no one argument that wins the day, for or against. Animal rights is a complicated issue. No one, partisan or foe, should expect a simple answer. Our guiding principle should be: let all voices be free to speak and to speak without interruption. After all, deciding where the truth lies takes time." ~ Professor Tom Regan, Empty Cages (2004), page 63. 

As it does not seem to remotely reflect the reality of discussions on this forum.

I am confused, does the statement "let all voices be free to speak and to speak without interruption" not apply to me? 

Does the statement "There is no one fact, no one argument that wins the day, for or against." not apply to the arguments you choose to disagree with? 

I think it would be fair and reasonable to expect you to provide some examples or evidence of the claims you have made here. It's very easy to make these claims without offering facts to support them, but I think it's a little unfair to do so. 

[Lucas Hayes]

Tim, I see that you were asking me a question, but I wouldn't have replied much differently than Carolyn has, so I'll just agree with her.

I would just add that in 1951 the term veganism was defined, or rather clarified, as a movement to end animal exploitation by humans. To refer to veganism simply as abstinence from animal products with no guiding principle for doing so (which i believe is what you were doing with the rape comparison) is to decontextualize veganism historically.

 

I posted this on your blog some time ago: http://www.candidhominid.com/p/veganism-defined.html
 

There is more background information here: http://www.candidhominid.com/p/in-search-of-veganism-1.html

and here: http://www.candidhominid.com/p/in-search-of-veganism-2.html

Tim Gier said:

Does the simple fact that I am not rapist make me an advocate for the cause of ending rape?  I think it does not.  

[Tim Gier]

Hi Lucas, 

I didn't mean to refer to veganism as simple the abstinence from consuming products derived from other animals. In fact, I've written often that if veganism is conceived of and practiced in such a way that it becomes only (or even mostly) about one's personal non-consumptive habits, then veganism would become largely empty. It seems to me that is actually the point that Erik Marcus is making - a personal identity of 'vegan' when and if it doesn't include the personal identity 'advocate for other animals' isn't a very powerful identity in terms of creating social change. Therefore, if as a vegan I conduct myself as would a person who refrains from sexually assaulting others while at the same time not lifting a finger to do anything proactive in order to get those who do commit assaults to change, then my vegan status is a socially meaningful as my non-rapist status. It's good that I don't sexually assault others, and it's good that I don't willfully partake in the systems that exploit and kill other animals, but neither non-action is the same thing as activism. Now, it may well be the case that most vegans are vocal about their veganism and are activists (or as Melanie Joy puts it 'witnesses') for other animals in all that they do. That's an empirical question that we could, at least in theory, get an answer to. I suspect that most people who are vegan aren't activists or witnesses very much in that sense, although I could be wrong and hope that I am.

Lucas Hayes said:

To refer to veganism simply as abstinence from animal products with no guiding principle for doing so (which i believe is what you were doing with the rape comparison) is to decontextualize veganism historically.

[Lucas Hayes]

" Now, it may well be the case that most vegans are vocal about their veganism and are activists (or as Melanie Joy puts it 'witnesses') for other animals in all that they do. That's an empirical question that we could, at least in theory, get an answer to. I suspect that most people who are vegan aren't activists or witnesses very much in that sense, although I could be wrong and hope that I am.."

Why would you suspect that most people who are vegan aren't activists or 'witnesses" in that sense?