Animal Rights Zone

Fighting for animal liberation and an end to speciesism

Our Voices, Our Movement: How Vegans Can Move Beyond the “Welfare-Abolition Debate”

Dr. Melanie Joy speaks about the "welfare -vs- abolition "debate"", and suggests a new way of thinking about this issue. 

Our Voices, Our Movement: How Vegans Can Move Beyond the “Welfare-Abolition Debate”

Written by Dr. Melanie Joy 

 

For years I have remained silent on the “welfare-abolition debate,” believing that my limited time and energy as an activist were best directed elsewhere. But recent events have compelled me to witness the profound anger, confusion, guilt, weariness, and despair this issue triggers in vegans – vegans whose commitment and compassion never cease to astound and inspire me. So I could not, in good conscience, avoid contemplating this issue and sharing my reflections.

Much has been written about the content of the issue – the specific ideas and arguments that comprise each position. In fact, virtually all that has been discussed in regard to the “debate” is content-based, and one would be hard-pressed to find new content to add to a “debate” that has been at a stalemate since its inception. So I am not going to argue for a position here, but, rather, suggest a different way of thinking about this issue – a reframe that I hope will help free up some energy that’s been spent in a gridlock, so that our lives are more peaceful and our activism is more effective.

What I suggest is that we turn our attention from the content to the process of the issue. 

 

CONTINUE READING

 

 

Please visit www.carnism.com to read about the amazing work Dr. Melanie Joy is doing to create other types of dialogues. 

 

Dr. Melanie Joy also covered this topic when she spoke with ARZone recently HERE. 

 

 

Originally Posted at One Green Planet

Views: 1895

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks, Spencer.  Apart from utilitarianism, I've wondered if Singer's views on nonhuman animals have changed over the years (?)  I wonder because I clearly remember Singer posing the question for his readers in Animal Liberation -- what if animals could be treated more compassionately? -- and his answer was that -- we still wouldn't want them to give up their lives for food we don't need.   That's why I was surprised and disappointed to learn he was accepting of "humane" farming.


 
Spencer Lo said:

Hi Ellie,


Regarding Singer, I'll just briefly say that there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding his philosophy (I'll get into more details at a later time, perhaps in a blog post), and so much of the popular criticisms I've seen are simplistic and misinformed.  I recommend reading his "Practical Ethics" (3d ed), which I picked up today. One common misunderstanding: his argument in "Animal Liberation" actually *doesn't* presuppose utilitarianism, but is merely compatible with it. Hence the argument can be fully embraced by someone sympathetic to a rights-based approach.

Perhaps Prof. Francione is having trouble remembering the advocates he so dismissively refers to as "welfarists" who have indeed offered to debate him on this, and so many other topics? 



Spencer Lo said:

On Francione's fb page, he wrote: "Opposing Views picked up my essay about the supposed "invisibility" of the ideology of animal exploitation.

Maybe some of the defenders of this position will engage me in discussion about this topic. Oops. I forgot. We aren't allowed to discuss anything that is critical of animal welfare. That's 'divisive.'"

That motivated me to post my brief response over at Opposing Views. :)

Thanks, I'll check out Opposing Views and listen to Melanie Joy's podcast.

Hi Ellie,

Singer, IMO, is a very nuanced and careful thinker (characteristic of analytic philosophers generally), and so many of his controversial statements need to understood in light of his many qualifications, which people often miss (e.g., killing is okay only in circumstances such as C, if conditions x, y, and z obtain). Those qualifications may not be fully stated in interviews, so some readers are left with the wrong impression. Also: keep in mind that he often addresses purely hypothetical scenarios, many of which aren't realistic even if they appear so at first glance. To my knowledge, I don't think Singer supports "humane" farming, even though he recognizes that animals are treated better ("better" doesn't mean "morally okay").

An uncharitable response, IMO, to Melanie Joy's piece: http://my-face-is-on-fire.blogspot.com/2012/10/misrepresenting-abol...

I think the author might have been a bit more gentle, but I have to be honest, Spencer, I don't agree with most of what Melanie Joy wrote in "Our Voices, Our Movement ....", though I appreciate her understanding that the minority may be especially vocal *because it's overlooked ( or in my own words, marginalized).   
 
Spencer Lo said:

An uncharitable response, IMO, to Melanie Joy's piece: http://my-face-is-on-fire.blogspot.com/2012/10/misrepresenting-abol...

Hi Ellie. What do you make of Joy's point about divisive labeling? Do you think her criticism, on that particular point, is wrong?  Over at McWilliams' website, I explain why I think she's right about that: http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=2241#comments Interested to know your thoughts.

Hi Spencer,

I think the labels identify the division in animal activism -- they did not create it.   Imo, it's not enough to believe nonhuman beings should be free -- we have to work toward that goal, or at least not work against it.          

Thanks for the link, Spencer! 

Wow! The author has completely misrepresented Melanie's essay in what seems to be a hateful and inaccurate evaluation of what Melanie wrote. 

In regard to debating, she said: "It apparently leaves the observer or listener to said debate limited to accepting one of two positions (obviously not the so-called loser's) and leaves the observer or listener completely in the dark about possible nuances to whatever topic is being debated. Presumably, this is because Joy thinks that people are incapable of listening and then reflecting upon and processing what they hear?"

Oddly, and hypocritically, this is exactly what Gary Francione and his devotees have said for years about ARZone Live Guest Chats. They have claimed that, by presenting the views of advocates such as Bruce Friedrich, Melanie Joy, Tom Regan and others, and challenging those views, ARZone was “confusing our members",  because ARZone members, and the general advocacy community were incapable of “listening and then reflecting upon and processing what they hear”. 

Also: "I won't go into detail about how Joy rambles on about how there is absolutely no evidence that promoting welfare reform will or won't bring about the abolition of animal use"

Of course not, because there IS absolutely no evidence that promoting welfare reform will or won’t bring about the abolition of animal use. If there were, rather than suggesting people should read Gary’s books, perhaps it would be more productive to actually present this mysterious “evidence” so we might all “see the light”. 

"I'm guessing that explaining to her that terms come with context and with definitions would just lead to an accusation that I was being confrontational and "non-liberatory."

Melanie Joy is a social psychologist, a professor of psychology and sociology, and a celebrated speaker who has spent many years researching the psychology of eating meat, systems of oppression and strategic social change. But, perhaps the author’s intuitions on this topic invalidate Melanie’s years of research? Or, perhaps not! 

Thank goodness there are only a handful of these fundamentalists left. Whether one agrees with Melanie's article or not, articles like Mylene's which seem to intentionally misrepresent Melanie's position and her essay, whilst reminding us that only those who abide by Gary Francione's theories (to the letter)  are "real" "abolitionists", and the rest of us are falling over ourselves to exploit other animals in any way we can, are extremely problematic. Refusing to even contemplate the well researched theories of others serves only to further marginalise Gary and his work.


Hi Ellie.

But then on your view, the notion of “abolitionist” must be tied to a specific theory or idea about strategy, which radically departs from the ordinary understanding of the term. The ordinary understanding of “abolitionist” (of anything) is merely someone who favors the abolition of some practice or institution, and is completely neutral with respect to strategy. So Francione’s departure from the linguistic norm invites the question of why  the term should be defined so narrowly, to refer only  to a very specific strategy as well as end goal. IMO, one can be an abolitionist about X and have very terrible (even morally repugnant) ideas about how to abolish X.

Giving up the label “new-welfarist” doesn’t require any concession about strategic (or moral) differences, but would simply remove an unnecessary (divisive) obstacle in the debate—namely, the passionate fight over mere labels. In other words, if Francione were to stop calling people he identifies as “new welfarists” by that term, and to concede their “abolitionist” status based on the ordinary, neutral meaning of “abolitionist,” I don’t see what he would be conceding except for the label. The real debate over strategy would still be there.

Hi Carolyn,

Re-reading Francione's essay, the following sentence struck me: "Indeed, an explicit goal of the 'invisibility' position is precisely to stifle dissent and debate about the welfarist position." It appears Francione refers to carnism as "the invisibility position," but is he really suggesting that an "explicit goal" of carnism is to "stifle dissent and debate?" I hope I'm misinterpreting, because that would be an outrageous claim to make (I pointed this out to him over at Opposing Views).

Hey Spencer, 

I interpret that statement the same way as you do. He uses "the invisibility position" in order to avoid using Melanie's name - that's a regular tactic of his. 

I agree that his statement is outrageous. I also think it is arrogant, rude, intentionally misleading and assumes that his readers are gullible enough not to question it. You may have noticed over at Opposing Views, when someone dares to question Gary or his work, he makes statements such as: 

"In any event, if you don't see what the invisibility position has to do with animal welfare, you did not read my essay or I did not write clearly enough. If the latter is the case, I apologize but I really do not know how else to say it."

It's very familiar. Compare it to this comment, to Tim, in ARZone,  

"If anyone finds this confusing, I must apologize but I can't state it more clearly and I have no artistic ability and cannot draw pictures."  

~  http://arzone.ning.com/profiles/blogs/wayne-pacelle-and-i-agree?id=4715978%3ABlogPost%3A16697&page=3#comments



Spencer Lo said:

Hi Carolyn,

Re-reading Francione's essay, the following sentence struck me: "Indeed, an explicit goal of the 'invisibility' position is precisely to stifle dissent and debate about the welfarist position." It appears Francione refers to carnism as "the invisibility position," but is he really suggesting that an "explicit goal" of carnism is to "stifle dissent and debate?" I hope I'm misinterpreting, because that would be an outrageous claim to make (I pointed this out to him over at Opposing Views).

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

ARZone Podcasts!

Please visit this webpage to subscribe to ARZone podcasts using iTunes

or

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Follow ARZone!

Please follow ARZone on:

Twitter

Google+

Pinterest

A place for animal advocates to gather and discuss issues, exchange ideas, and share information.

Creative Commons License
Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) by ARZone is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.arzone.ning.com.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.arzone.ning.com.

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Disclaimer

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) is an animal rights site. As such, it is the position of ARZone that it is only by ending completely the use of other animal as things can we fulfill our moral obligations to them.

Please read the full site disclosure here.

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Mission Statement

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) exists to help educate vegans and non-vegans alike about the obligations human beings have toward all other animals.

Please read the full mission statement here.

Members

Events

Badge

Loading…

© 2024   Created by Animal Rights Zone.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Google+