Veganism Isn't Like Facebook ~ Tim Gier

[Carolyn Bailey]

What do you think? Is veganism likely to spread like wildfire? Is it the case that the argument for why a person ought to be vegan is so compelling that anyone who hears it and understands it will have little choice but to adopt the practice? If so, why has veganism not already spread like wildfire since the term was coined almost 70 years ago? And what can we, as vegan advocates do to change that, realistically? 

Veganism isn’t like Facebook

 

Veganism isn’t like Facebook. No kidding, you say, veganism is a moral imperative (as if we know what that means) while Facebook is the latest internet craze (that one day soon will fade, as crazes almost always do). But that is the point.

Facebook went from a college dorm room to nearly worldwide adoption in 8 years. There are now supposedly 1 Billion Facebook subscribers. The idea – as well as the use of the site – spread like wildfire. One might be tempted to say that it was an idea whose time had come. Or, and what is more likely, whatever confluence of events and opportunities emerged to make Facebook possible simply just happened and there is no way to explain it. As it’s recent stock performance surely shows, there is no way to predict it.

Veganism isn’t going to spread like wildfire. It isn’t the case that the argument for why a person ought to be vegan is so compelling that anyone who hears it and understands it will have little choice but to adopt the practice. Were it the case, then in the 70 or so years since the word vegan was coined, veganism would claim much more than 1 or 2 % of the world’s population it does as among its adherents.

No, veganism is not like Facebook, and the world won’t be vegan if you want it.

People don’t become vegan because they reason that being vegan is the logical or moral thing to do. The few people who do become vegan, for the most part, become vegan because it simply feels wrong for them not to be. Getting people who aren’t vegan to feel the things that vegans feel is probably an impossible task; it’s not like asking people to try Facebook. Even if it were, I suspect that in 10 years time we’ll all look back on the phenomena that is Facebook and wonder why we all thought it so revolutionary. Like MySpace and AOL before it, Facebook will become the idea whose time has gone. People won’t feel like using it anymore. Most people won’t ever feel like being vegan – there won’t ever be a worldwide vegan craze – it’s faded out before it’s ever begun.

tim gier

http://timgier.com/2012/08/21/veganism-isnt-like-facebook/

 

 

 

[Alex Melonas]

To begin, it's important to identify an inconsistency in Tim's post. He argues that the few people who do become vegan, for the most part, become vegan because it simply feels wrong for them not to be. (Agreed, but that's mere tautology; what else could possibly motivate them when not being vegan isn't illegal? A gun to the head?) But before this he argues that people don't become vegan because they reason that being vegan is the logical or moral thing to do. Well I don't mean to quibble with definitions here, but Tim's obviously assuming that the "it simply feels wrong" not to go vegan feeling doesn't have anything to do with reason or morality. That's just silly. 

More importantly, Tim's post reads like either a I-just-decided-to-be-selfish ex-vegan (the "I was once naive but now I see the light" types) or a sad little vegan who poo poo's everyday success because he's just "keeping it real." What's the point of this post? Is it for constructive dialogue, or an excuse for an activist to sell out because "things will never change"?

I think there are two approaches to a post like this. One is the approach I took above. Go into existential despair on your own time; we've got work to do. The other though, is to say: don't succumb to the fallacy of abstraction -- if the world isn't vegan if we want it then I'm a pessimist. Everyday, people see that they don't want to hurt people if they don't have to. And helping them along that journey is what I think of when I hear "the world is vegan if you want it."   

[Tim Gier]

Alex, I'll only make this one comment because, to be perfectly honest, I am not interested in any conversation with you. My post is not inconsistent. People have a feeling that something is wrong, that's not a feeling based on moral or logical reasoning, it's just a feeling. Ad-hoc rationalizations that put layers of logic and morality on top of our emotional decisions come later. 

[Carolyn Bailey]

Hi Alex, 

I will allow Tim to reply to you in regard to the questions about his post, as a general matter, but in regard to your question: 

What's the point of this post? Is it for constructive dialogue, or an excuse for an activist to sell out because "things will never change"?

It was me who chose to post Tim's essay in ARZone, not Tim, and you're correct, one of the reasons I chose to post this essay here was to provoke constructive dialogue amongst ARZone members. I think it's critical, urgent even, that we discuss these issues and work on ways to make significant changes, both to the belief that some seem to have that believing the world will become vegan, if only we wish hard enough, and to the ways in which we go about educating more people to seriously consider becoming vegan, and advocates for others. 

These are important issues, and I think they should be discussed honestly and openly. 

[Alex Melonas]

@ Tim, you aren't interested in any conversation with me, and yet you reply...

Anyway, your post is inconsistent because that feeling that going vegan is just the right thing to do is, ipso facto, a moral impulse. It isn't "just a feeling," it's an argument, as Hume and Smith articulated well so long ago. So you contradict yourself in your own post. Tim, you don't need to arrive at a conclusion via logic for that conclusion to be called "moral." When people experience that feeling you speak of, they are, in fact, responding to the argument. 

@ Carolyn, Tim makes no effort to answer the question: what can we, as vegan activists, do to change the situation (as he see's it), realistically? Without any thoughts on that stuff, his post contributes nothing by way of constructive dialogue. His final sentence nicely sums up the sentiment of his little blog post: "it's faded out before it's ever begun." What would be a constructive response to that?

"No, your pessimism is wrong."

"I'm not wasting my time." 

What? In the comment section on his blog he says he's not "naive" anymore, he's "well-informed" now, "realistic" even. That reads like a tired soon-to-be ex-vegan who woke up one day and saw the light that nobody else does. He writes as though all of us who hold on to optimism are naive and foolish.

AR Zone is a place for activists, a place to motivate those in the movement. Tim's post, then, belongs on some "Let Them Eat Meat"-type blog. There are important issues, but then there's just poo pooing on everybody else. 

[Tim Gier]

Alex, the reason I am not interested in conversation with you is because talking to you, for me, appears to be a complete waste of time. Perhaps you believe that when a person thinks to themselves "This is wrong because I don't like it because of how it feels to me" that's ipso facto a moral judgment on their part, but to me it's quite plainly an emotional reaction and nothing more. The reason it's important to point out the difficulties involved in "vegan education" is that, if it's true that people act on affects and drives (i.e. emotions) rather than on logic and reason (which ample psychological research shows is true) then advocates ought to be thinking about how to make people feel rather than how to reason with them. At the same time, I believe that long-term and substantial change in how humans use other animals will not come about because advocates talk to non-vegans. But, please, don't let me stop you from the advocacy you are doing. Just because I think it's a waste of time doesn't mean that it is. 

I promise now, I will never speak to you again.

[Alex Melonas]

(You promise?)

You know every time Francione, for instance, finds people who push up against him, he argues that it's a complete waste of time to talk to them. It strikes me that it would do Francione-like people some good to ask themselves: is it really always the other side who isn't "thinking clearly," or reasoning right, whatever? Another question: am I just calling "spam" those arguments that, to the other person, seem as firm as mine seem to me? And if so, maybe I'll interrogate just how limited my own horizon really is. 

But to your actual contribution here, there you go, that's an interesting argument re: what motivates people. If you had only drawn that out a bit in your little blog post it wouldn't have sounded so...whatever. And I'll bet you that those people who have that feeling agree with me that it isn't just an emotional reaction but something quite properly called a moral impulse. But like Francione, you can define words however you'd like and then exclude a lot of people from the conversation based on your own definitions. ("Animal rights is only this...", and all that.) I think though, that what you're saying here isn't that big a secret, it isn't revelatory. Vegan activists constantly use emotional appeals, and constantly tailor their activism with an eye towards psychology (e.g. that's why the shirts say "ask me why I'm a vegetarian" not "vegan"; that's why we show images). 

That last point really gets at your sentiment here though, doesn't it? Activism isn't really making a long-term, substantial change. (That's the fallacy of abstraction I told you about btw.) It makes me wonder: why are you even here, why do you blog, and all that? It's mere talking Tim, not macro-structural change. Is it not a waste of time to just pound away about vegan advocates to other vegan advocates, too?  

[Lucas Hayes]

"It isn’t the case that the argument for why a person ought to be vegan is so compelling that anyone who hears it and understands it will have little choice but to adopt the practice."

Is anyone even arguing that? If so, who?

"Getting people who aren’t vegan to feel the things that vegans feel is probably an impossible task"

Yet here we all are, people who were not born into veganism but are now vegans. And then there's all those other vegans who were once not vegans but ended up "feeling the things" that vegans feel (such as moral superiorty and general pompousness).

[Tim Gier]

Lucas,

Bob Linden says that the arguments for veganism are so strong that if people will listen they will agree. I don't remember his exact words, but his meaning was clear. I remember other people saying much the same thing although I won't take the time to find the examples.

Yes, and yet we are here, vegans who were once not vegans. I've never argued that some people won't become vegan, and I've never argued that some people won't become vegan after hearing a logical argument. What I've argued is that most people won't become vegan simply because someone else gives them reasons for why they should.

[Billy L]

I'm a sad little vegan that likes to keep it real.
:'(