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

[Carolyn Bailey]

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

[Spencer Lo]

I hope Francione chooses to respond to my latest comment to him over at Opposing Views! It's all very informative.

[Spencer Lo]

And Carolyn,

This statement: "Further, the “invisibility” position purports to relieve us from moral responsibility for our conduct, claiming that if we participate in animal exploitation, it’s because we are being “victimized” by the “invisible” ideology. So if you eat animal products, that’s not because you are making the wrong moral decisions and victimizing animals; it’s because some “invisible” conditioning is victimizing you."

On her website, Melanie explicitly describes the eating of animals as a social justice issue, and calls carnism a "violent, exploitative ideology," one that is at odds with the "core values of most people." That sounds like a very explicit call to take moral responsibility for our conduct, so I don't know what Francione is talking about (again).  

[Carolyn Bailey]

If only he'd agree to one of the many debates those he refers to as "welfarists" have agreed to, or invited him to, over the years. I guess we'll never know what he's talking about, as a general matter, unless he changes his mind on debating one of the many, many people who have offered to debate him. 

[Ellie Maldonado]

Hi Spencer,

If we look at the definitions of abolition, abolitionist and abolitionism, I think they show actions must match intent.  For example:

 

ab·o·li·tion·ist: 1. (especially prior to the Civil War) a person who ** advocated or supported the abolition of slavery in the U.S.         2. a person who favors the abolition of any law or practice deemed harmful to society: the abolitionists who are opposed to capital punishment http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Abolitionist

** (ad·vo·cate: verb (used with object): to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advocated )

 

abolition (noun) 1: the act of abolishing : the state of being abolished 2: the abolishing of slavery

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abolition

abolitionism: principles or measures fostering abolition especially of slavery

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abolitionism

Abolitionist movement: called for the end of the institution of slavery and had existed in one form or another since colonial times; the early case had been stated most consistently by the Quakers .... "      http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h477.htm

 

 

And importantly, we don't need to refer to the abolition of slavery to see this.  If we oppose capital punishment, for example, we have to advocate for its end by actively saying so.  Treating a condemned person nicely and/or providing a painless death does not support the abolition of capital punishment.   In fact, believing this person didn't suffer,  will ease the consciences of supporters of capital punishment, and confirm their belief in execution.

Spencer Lo said:

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.

[Ellie Maldonado]

Also Spencer, I'm not adamant about the term, "new welfarist", but I think it's important to distinguish "welfare" from rights advocacy because imo they are polar opposites.       

[Spencer Lo]

Hi Ellie,

I do not believe those above definitions support a different definition of “abolitionist” than the one I previously articulated—they appear pretty much the same. There is no requirement that an abolitionist about X must endorse or favor a specific strategy for accomplishing the abolition of X. Thus, so long as a person “advocates” the abolition of animal exploitation, “supports” that abolition, or “favors” it—verbs with very broad meanings—then he or she is an animal abolitionist. Those who are labeled “new-welfarists” easily fit this definition of “abolitionist” (e.g., Bruce Friedrich).  

Your capital punishment example is illustrative. I’m opposed to capital punishment, and thus since I “favor” or “support” the complete abolition of it, that makes me an abolitionist about capital punishment. But this position seems perfectly compatible with me supporting the notion that execution measures should not be painful if execution will take place anyway: if I can’t prevent the State from executing Peter, I can support efforts to make sure that he won’t be tortured to death. I can support both Peter’s constitutional right to a painless execution and the end of capital punishment generally.

[Spencer Lo]

Francione's latest piece, which is obviously a response to Joy: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/means-and-ends/ For what it's worth, I agree with him that some strategic differences can be fundamental (i.e., ideological).

[Ellie Maldonado]

Hi Spencer,

I agree there's "no requirement that an abolitionist about X must endorse or favor a specific strategy for accomplishing the abolition of X" -- but some things work toward abolition, and some things don't.

Regulating how convicts are executed, for example, does not support abolition of the death penalty.  In fact, proponents of the death penalty (like supporters of animal agriculture) contend the current method (lethal injection) is "humane".  And as long as people believe that, capital punishment will not be abolished.  Thus, abolition  *requires a rejection of the belief that execution can be "humane".   

Similarly, it's essential for animal advocates to reject the belief that nonhumans can be farmed and killed "humanely", because as long as consumers believe it, they won't become vegans for the sake of nonhuman interests.  Just as abolition of the death penalty requires a rejection of "humane" methods, animal rights advocates must reject "humane" methods of farming and killing.
 
Spencer Lo said:

Hi Ellie,

I do not believe those above definitions support a different definition of “abolitionist” than the one I previously articulated—they appear pretty much the same. There is no requirement that an abolitionist about X must endorse or favor a specific strategy for accomplishing the abolition of X. Thus, so long as a person “advocates” the abolition of animal exploitation, “supports” that abolition, or “favors” it—verbs with very broad meanings—then he or she is an animal abolitionist. Those who are labeled “new-welfarists” easily fit this definition of “abolitionist” (e.g., Bruce Friedrich).  

Your capital punishment example is illustrative. I’m opposed to capital punishment, and thus since I “favor” or “support” the complete abolition of it, that makes me an abolitionist about capital punishment. But this position seems perfectly compatible with me supporting the notion that execution measures should not be painful if execution will take place anyway: if I can’t prevent the State from executing Peter, I can support efforts to make sure that he won’t be tortured to death. I can support both Peter’s constitutional right to a painless execution and the end of capital punishment generally.

[Spencer Lo]

Hey Ellie. I fully agree that some strategies work towards abolition and others do not, and among the strategies that do work, some are wholly immoral (e.g., blowing up the planet, which would end all  forms of exploitation). But this common usage of "abolitionist" is value neutral, which I think is an advantage: there would be no longer any reason to bicker about mere labels (Melanie Joy's point), and it would allow participants to focus exclusively on the underlying strategic issues -- the real debate. 

About capital punishment (and animal farming), the term "humane" is often the source of great confusion. "Humane killing" can mean one of two things: 1) painless killing, or 2) painless killing that is morally permissible. (1) does not imply (2), and so while I agree that abolition requires the rejection of the belief that execution can be "humane" in sense (2), it does not require the rejection of the belief that execution can be "humane" in sense (1). As a factual matter, it's true that executions (and animal killing) can be "humane" in sense (1); the real (ethical) question is whether they can be "humane" in sense (2). I suspect that the distinction between the two senses of word is regularly conflated in passionate discussions.

Btw, if I could recommend another book by Peter Singer (one I'm currently reading), it would be "Peter Singer Under Fire: The Moral Iconoclast Faces His Critics." Review here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24252-peter-singer-under-fire-the-moral-ico...

[Spencer Lo]

I spent a some time composing a response to Mylene's article (Mylene owns the blog "My Face is On Fire," which I linked to earlier in this thread). For interested readers:

--------------------

Hi Mylene,

You are a fine writer and fun to read, but IMO, I thought uncharity largely pervaded your analysis of Joy’s article both in substance and (snarky) tone, notwithstanding the fact that some parts of her article can be difficult to interpret (I also disagree with some of her claims).

One example regarding debate, where you wrote: “according to Joy, merely having a rational critical discussion where you're expected to defend claims you make is tantamount to falling into this supposed non-vegan and "non-liberatory" mindset. Joy, in effect, decides to attack the entire idea and usefulness of debating, in and of itself...In fact, not only is it all about winning, but it's about labeling the person with whom you're engaging in critical dialogue a ‘loser’.”

This does not accurately represent what Joy was trying to say, for when she discussed the idea of “debate,” she had a very specific understanding in mind--one which involves *more* than “merely having a rational critical discussion.” Her initial qualification “In general, when we debate…” should have made clear that her intent was not to “attack the entire idea” of debate, but to focus on *how* debate is commonly practiced, where the goal *is* to win an argument, to defend a certain position, or to demonstrate why some argument is unsound or fallacious. “Debate” as commonly practiced is certainly counterproductive and undesirable, especially when critical issues are at stake, and one doesn’t have to look hard to find numerous examples in various forums and current politics. As an experienced participant in “debates,” in areas other than animal rights, I can tell you that this mentality is pervasive.  

Consider the practice of trying to demonstrate that an argument is fallacious or unsound. A person in “debate mode” is strongly motivated, usually by ego, to “destroy” or “refute” the argument, because doing so is intellectually rewarding--it can make one feel good or powerful (I speak from personal experience). I believe most people reading this probably understand what I’m talking about, and if they engage in a little critical self-reflection regarding their debate motivations, I believe Joy’s observations will ring true. 

But does this mean Joy is suggesting that “dialogue” should not involve “rational critical discussion?” Of course not. The distinction between “debate” and “dialogue,” according to Joy, lies in their different goals: one is largely ego-driven, the other is not. Thus in this sense the two processes *are* “two completely altogether different things.” Dialogue should *involve* putting forth arguments, counter-arguments, pointing out fallacies, rigorous scrutiny, etc, but it isn’t *about* those things--yet too often the difference is conflated, which I believe is Joy’s point. It’s *easy* to say: “Debate for me is merely about rational discussion, and thus not about *my* views against others - it's about *which* view is right. I’m not personally attached to *my* views and arguments simply because they're mine.” Most people who say this to themselves are probably self-deceived (again, I’m no exception). As I read her, Joy’s suggestion is simply that when engaging the topic of animal welfare, participants should not approach discussion with a “debate” attitude, which is the source of much hostility and tension. That, to me, makes eminent sense, but I welcome anyone to explain why Joy's point amounts to "straw."

Mylene, in light of my comments, I hope you would consider revising your current understanding of Joy’s article. 

[Carolyn Bailey]

Fantastic comment, Spencer! Do you expect it to be published? 

[Spencer Lo]

Thanks Carolyn! To her credit, Mylene has not censored any of my comments in her previous post (where Francione makes an appearance): http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1528521735436082423&pos... I have no reason to think my above comment won't eventually go through.