Our Voices, Our Movement: How Vegans Can Move Beyond the “Welfare-Abolition Debate” - Animal Rights Zone2024-03-28T13:28:03Zhttps://arzone.ning.com/forum/topics/our-voices-our-movement-how-vegans-can-move-beyond-the-welfare-ab?commentId=4715978%3AComment%3A115743&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThanks for this link, it's ve…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-11-17:4715978:Comment:1178882012-11-17T00:45:44.579ZCarolyn Baileyhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/CarolynBailey
<p>Thanks for this link, it's very interesting! </p>
<p>Thanks for this link, it's very interesting! </p> Insightful and interesting co…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-10-19:4715978:Comment:1159182012-10-19T01:58:24.103ZSpencer Lohttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/SpencerLo
<p>Insightful and interesting commentary by Cochrane--thanks for sharing!</p>
<p>Insightful and interesting commentary by Cochrane--thanks for sharing!</p> Thanks for your thoughtful re…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-10-14:4715978:Comment:1155862012-10-14T04:07:43.877ZKate G.https://arzone.ning.com/profile/KateG
<p>Thanks for your thoughtful reply, as always, Spencer.</p>
<p>I don't think the Francionists get to decide what everyone else's intentions are, try as they might!</p>
<p>I wonder if ARZone would consider interviewing Diane L. Beers, the author of "For the Prevention of Cruelty: The History and Legacy of Animal Rights Activism in the United States." She focuses on the movement beginning with the end of the Civil War through 1975 and I bet she'd have a really interesting take on the history and…</p>
<p>Thanks for your thoughtful reply, as always, Spencer.</p>
<p>I don't think the Francionists get to decide what everyone else's intentions are, try as they might!</p>
<p>I wonder if ARZone would consider interviewing Diane L. Beers, the author of "For the Prevention of Cruelty: The History and Legacy of Animal Rights Activism in the United States." She focuses on the movement beginning with the end of the Civil War through 1975 and I bet she'd have a really interesting take on the history and significance of these labels and "divisions." </p> Hi Kate. My guess is that tho…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-10-14:4715978:Comment:1158202012-10-14T03:49:22.585ZSpencer Lohttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/SpencerLo
<p>Hi Kate. My guess is that those terms would probably be unacceptable to Francione abolitionists, because they would say they also favor "incremental change" - but at the grassroots level (vegan education) - and other abolitionists would say they favor both grassroots, vegan education and some legislative reforms. Finding acceptable and accurate labels is hard, given how many different "abolitionist" positions are possible. There are probably five broad categories here: (1) Francione…</p>
<p>Hi Kate. My guess is that those terms would probably be unacceptable to Francione abolitionists, because they would say they also favor "incremental change" - but at the grassroots level (vegan education) - and other abolitionists would say they favor both grassroots, vegan education and some legislative reforms. Finding acceptable and accurate labels is hard, given how many different "abolitionist" positions are possible. There are probably five broad categories here: (1) Francione abolitionists, (2) abolitionists with non-Francionian ideas, particularly ideas on how to abolish animal exploitation and reduce suffering, (3) near-abolitionists who favor abolishing virtually all animal exploitation but not all, (4) modest-abolitionists who favor abolishing some animal exploitation but not all, (5) non-abolitionists who simply want to regulate animal exploitation (e.g., husbandry modification). </p>
<p></p>
<p>The "abolition-welfare" debate probably concerns only (1), (2) and (maybe) (3)--definitely (1) and (2). My view is that, if any labels are to be used, there should be one label to describe the end goal of abolition ("abolitionist"), and then various technical labels to describe the respective strategic approaches (and there could be strategic differences <em>within</em> the broad categories, necessitating further distinctions). I'm still not sure what the latter should be. I think it'd be a good start if people in (1) and (2) can simply agree that we're all abolitionists fighting for the same end goal.</p>
<p></p>
<p>However for Francionists, I suspect their problem with the universal label is that it gives the impression that we're all in "one movement"--all abolitionists, but simply with very different strategic ideas. This, I'm starting to think, is their fundamental complaint: they want to be viewed as a counter-movement, distinct and separate from the larger animal advocacy movement. The problem with that, though, is that all social movements contain diverse ideas -- a lot of them. <span id=".reactRoot[75].[1][2][1]{comment214559132008839_761131}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[75].[1][2][1]{comment214559132008839_761131}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]."><span id=".reactRoot[75].[1][2][1]{comment214559132008839_761131}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]..[3]"><span id=".reactRoot[75].[1][2][1]{comment214559132008839_761131}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]..[3]."><span id=".reactRoot[75].[1][2][1]{comment214559132008839_761131}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]..[3]..[18]">The relevant question is: does it make more sense to describe animal advocates as all being in a single (albeit highly diverse) movement or in separate movements which nevertheless share common goals and values <em>central</em> to each? The question seems largely a verbal one.</span></span></span></span></span></p> I agree that "abolitionist" s…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-10-14:4715978:Comment:1157522012-10-14T02:44:07.617ZKate G.https://arzone.ning.com/profile/KateG
<p>I agree that "abolitionist" should retain its basic definition and, as mentioned before, so should "welfare." I also think we should just drop the "-ist" labels altogether. I regret to say that there have been too many times where the fear of being labeled "welfarist" has made me way too hesitant to ask questions or do something productive. The labels put the focus on each other instead of on the animals who need our hearts and minds so much more. That's been my experience,…</p>
<p>I agree that "abolitionist" should retain its basic definition and, as mentioned before, so should "welfare." I also think we should just drop the "-ist" labels altogether. I regret to say that there have been too many times where the fear of being labeled "welfarist" has made me way too hesitant to ask questions or do something productive. The labels put the focus on each other instead of on the animals who need our hearts and minds so much more. That's been my experience, anyway.</p>
<p>How about this... For those who have the shared goal of abolishing animal exploitation, perhaps we could use the terms "direct elimination" vs. "incremental change" to describe the difference in strategy. This describes strategy, not individuals. And by doing so recognizes that people may adopt different strategies for different situations while still having the same end goal of abolition.</p>
<p>For those whose end goal is NOT abolition, perhaps we could say they support "husbandry modification".</p>
<p>Do these sound fair and accurate? </p>
<blockquote cite="http://arzone.ning.com/forum/topics/our-voices-our-movement-how-vegans-can-move-beyond-the-welfare-ab?xg_source=activity&id=4715978%3ATopic%3A111205&page=5#4715978Comment115638"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>(3) To engage in better “dialogue,” divisive labels should be dropped in favor of “terms that are more inclusive and accurate.” For instance, “abolitionist” should retain its ordinary (neutral) definition to mean someone who favors the abolition of a practice or an institution—in this case, the abolition of animal exploitation.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> No I understood what you mean…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-10-12:4715978:Comment:1157442012-10-12T00:04:36.790ZSpencer Lohttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/SpencerLo
<p>No I understood what you meant (you were perfectly clear :)), and agree with your comment. And thanks for the link to Patrick-Goudreau's podcast!</p>
<p>No I understood what you meant (you were perfectly clear :)), and agree with your comment. And thanks for the link to Patrick-Goudreau's podcast!</p> Hi Spencer. Just wanted to ma…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-10-11:4715978:Comment:1158092012-10-11T23:33:55.896ZKate G.https://arzone.ning.com/profile/KateG
<p>Hi Spencer. Just wanted to make clear that what I meant was ridiculous was the comment you received ( "<span id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151181893158630_8094655}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151181893158630_8094655}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]."><span id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151181893158630_8094655}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]..[21]">We also don't try to cultivate 'moral concern for animals' in any sense of…</span></span></span></p>
<p>Hi Spencer. Just wanted to make clear that what I meant was ridiculous was the comment you received ( "<span id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151181893158630_8094655}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151181893158630_8094655}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]."><span id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151181893158630_8094655}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]..[21]">We also don't try to cultivate 'moral concern for animals' in any sense of 'compassion!'"), not your response above. Just wanted to be sure you didn't think I was saying your comment was a ridiculous thing to say because I obviously agree with you! </span></span></span></p>
<p><br/> <cite>Kate Goldhouse said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://arzone.ning.com/forum/topics/our-voices-our-movement-how-vegans-can-move-beyond-the-welfare-ab?commentId=4715978%3AComment%3A115743&xg_source=msg_com_forum#4715978Comment115568"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Ugh. What a ridiculous thing to say. If we want more people on the side of justice for other animals we really need to stop belittling words like "compassion" and "respect." It may sound dumb and simple but to outsiders it literally sounds like we're against what most people consider basic decency. If someone tells a lie but claims it's the truth would we start opposing "truth" and "honesty"? That's just silly. Let's stand against the misuse of these words, but not against their real meaning. </p>
<p>So here goes... I, Kate, am a welfarist! Yes! Because I care about all animals faring well, which, at the very least, means freeing them from being used as means to our ends.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Ugh. What a ridiculous thing…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-10-11:4715978:Comment:1155682012-10-11T21:26:54.979ZKate G.https://arzone.ning.com/profile/KateG
<p>Ugh. What a ridiculous thing to say. If we want more people on the side of justice for other animals we really need to stop belittling words like "compassion" and "respect." It may sound dumb and simple but to outsiders it literally sounds like we're against what most people consider basic decency. If someone tells a lie but claims it's the truth would we start opposing "truth" and "honesty"? That's just silly. Let's stand against the misuse of these words, but not against their real…</p>
<p>Ugh. What a ridiculous thing to say. If we want more people on the side of justice for other animals we really need to stop belittling words like "compassion" and "respect." It may sound dumb and simple but to outsiders it literally sounds like we're against what most people consider basic decency. If someone tells a lie but claims it's the truth would we start opposing "truth" and "honesty"? That's just silly. Let's stand against the misuse of these words, but not against their real meaning. </p>
<p>So here goes... I, Kate, am a welfarist! Yes! Because I care about all animals faring well, which, at the very least, means freeing them from being used as means to our ends.</p> Great point, Kate - I dislike…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-10-11:4715978:Comment:1157432012-10-11T20:43:40.514ZSpencer Lohttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/SpencerLo
<p>Great point, Kate - I dislike the fact that I am now associating, consciously and unconsciously, the term "animal welfare" with something bad, and I suspect many people have made similar negative associations with the words "humane," "compassion," "respect," "kindness," etc. One "Abolitionist" on fb said to me: "…<span id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151181893158630_8094655}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]"></span></p>
<p>Great point, Kate - I dislike the fact that I am now associating, consciously and unconsciously, the term "animal welfare" with something bad, and I suspect many people have made similar negative associations with the words "humane," "compassion," "respect," "kindness," etc. One "Abolitionist" on fb said to me: "<span id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151181893158630_8094655}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151181893158630_8094655}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]."><span id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151181893158630_8094655}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]..[21]">We also don't try to cultivate 'moral concern for animals' in any sense of 'compassion!'" Rather than move away from those words, we should embrace them.</span></span></span></p>
<p>Another possible substitute for "animal welfare," suggested by David Sztybel, is "animal ill-fare." So maybe ill-farists? </p> I agree with you, Spencer. Wh…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-10-11:4715978:Comment:1155652012-10-11T20:30:12.393ZKate G.https://arzone.ning.com/profile/KateG
<p>I agree with you, Spencer. When I first became vegan it initially seemed odd to me that a vegan would oppose animal "welfare." But that's because I was assuming the CORRECT definition of "welfare"! Roger Yates had a podcast episode with Harold Brown where Brown said he prefers the term "animal husbandry" rather than "animal welfare" because it's a more accurate description. Perhaps rather than accusing people or organizations of being "welfarist," we should accuse them of NOT doing "welfare"…</p>
<p>I agree with you, Spencer. When I first became vegan it initially seemed odd to me that a vegan would oppose animal "welfare." But that's because I was assuming the CORRECT definition of "welfare"! Roger Yates had a podcast episode with Harold Brown where Brown said he prefers the term "animal husbandry" rather than "animal welfare" because it's a more accurate description. Perhaps rather than accusing people or organizations of being "welfarist," we should accuse them of NOT doing "welfare" (since any animal who is used and slaughtered really can't "fare well"). Let's call them "enablers" or "husbandrists" or something that better reflects the side they are on. (Colleen Patrick-Goudreau has a new podcast about the power of language and the importance of meaning what we say: <a href="http://www.compassionatecook.com/writings/podcast-media/i-dont-eat-fake-meat-an-etymological-appeal-for-living-and-speaking-compassionately" target="_blank">http://www.compassionatecook.com/writings/podcast-media/i-dont-eat-fake-meat-an-etymological-appeal-for-living-and-speaking-compassionately</a>)<br/> <br/> <cite>Spencer Lo said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://arzone.ning.com/forum/topics/our-voices-our-movement-how-vegans-can-move-beyond-the-welfare-ab?id=4715978%3ATopic%3A111205&page=4#4715978Comment111446"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Hi Ellie,</p>
<p><br/>I thought about your concern that "humane" has been co-opted to make animal killing more acceptable, and the same is undoubtedly true for words like "compassion," "kindness," "nice" and "animal welfare." But rather than not use those terms at all, it would be better to "take them back," so to speak, to demonstrate that <em>true</em> humane treatment or care, etc, is wholly incompatible with animal slaughter for food. Part of the battle against carnism--a sub-ideology of speciesism--seems to be a battle against linguistic conventions, in a similar way that the LGTB community has taken back the word "gay" and "queer." </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>