How Should We Market The Truth?
June 6, 2008
“[S]ometimes the louder you are the less people hear you; it’s kind of like when people mute the TV as soon as the obnoxiously loud commercials come on. Similarly, most people tune out ‘angry’ rhetoric and ‘extreme’ tactics. They might provide a momentary distraction or a media spectacle, but the extra attention is quickly lost.” [...] “Frankly, animal advocates also need to soften their tone and limit their expectations.” (source via)
Well, it’s true that some people will pick up the remote and press the mute button. Some people will use a Tivo or other DVR to fast-forward through commercials. And some people will ditch their televisions altogether and seek alternate entertainment. That’s all true.
But it’s not true for the majority. The reason commercials are louder than the TV programs is that this particular marketing method works.
I’d like to see the marketing research data that proves “most people tune out ‘angry’ rhetoric and ‘extreme’ tactics” because I’m not buying it. The world doesn’t change because people ask nicely. Revolutions happen when people go a step further.
I’ve said before that I wish I had studied marketing rather than philosophy because as much as I love logic, and I really, truly love it, logic doesn’t change opinion. Logic is a tool, not a magic wand. The vast majority of people behave irrationally and do things based on various, sometimes crazy reasons. What does the animal rights movement need most? Good marketers, sociologists, and psychologists. We don’t need experts in animal behavior; we need experts in human behavior.
I agree with the quote that we do need moderates, we need people who can help gently persuade consumers to eat less meat and be nicer to animals. However, we need ‘extremists’ too. Abolitionists are the core of our movement, not the superfluous.
I believe there’s too much emphasis on the consumer in the animal rights movement. All too often we’re asking consumers to change their behavior and we’re not getting at the root causes of the problem - the producers. Animal rights is not about changing consumer behavior within the framework of capitalism, though that can be one part of it. Capitalism should be one tool for change, not the entire structure. Animal rights is about liberating animals from the immoral and irrational whims of humans. Animal rights is more about the animals, than about the people who use them. So we ought to focus more time on how to help the animals and less time on asking nicely for a revolution.
Sometimes that means being nice and encouraging people to go vegan. But more often that means being honest. Honestly doesn’t require harsh words or a confrontational tone. But sadly, because of our society of lies, honesty sometimes feels harsh or confrontational. Omnivores react to words like “flesh” as though they’re not truthful. But people need to hear the truth: meat is murder.
Yes, murder.
No, I will not soften my tone. My tone is not the problem. The problem is animal exploitation. My task is to find my own personal niche: the area where my skills and personality can do the most good. My task is not to change my personality. Anger is a normal and natural human emotion. Anger is a normal, natural response to the wholly unnecessary suffering and killing of animals for meat and other human whims.
Justified anger, particularly if it’s nonviolent and productive, mustn’t be stifled. We shouldn’t fear anger. It is an energy, a life-force of our movement and the momentum for change. The anger won’t be quelled until the animal exploitation stops.
That’s not to say we should express that rage at our fellow humans in irrational and unjustified manners. We ought to treat all living beings with basic respect and decency. But we’re humans, too, and we must allow ourselves our natural emotions and their expressions. It’s not acceptable to shout obscenities at strangers, but it is truthful to call omnivores “killers.” They are killers. We must acknowledge the truths we know. And we mustn’t be afraid to speak the truth. It’s not comfortable or fun, but it’s honest.
And no, I won’t lessen my expectations. I won’t settle for humane treatment when we’re fighting for abolition. Shame, shame, shame on anyone suggesting we ought to lower our expectations.
—
*This post has been edited and updated.
Comments
17 Responses to “How Should We Market The Truth?”
1 Trackbacks to “How Should We Market The Truth?”
- Vegan Bites: Politics, Recipes, and Vegan Voices on June 8th, 2008 9:33 am
[...] “I’d like to see the marketing research data that proves ‘most people tune out ‘angry’ rhetoric and ‘extreme’ tactics’ because I’m not buying it. The world doesn’t change because people ask nicely. Revolutions happen when people go a step further.” Wherein I ask ‘How Should We Market The Truth?’ [...]
Got something to say?
Links
- Vegan Outreach
- Indexed
- Gimp Parade
- Binary Blonde
- Vegan Convenient
- Judy’s eljay
- Devious Diva
- INCITE
- On Human-Nonhuman Relations
- Modern Cat
- Anonymous Lawyer
- Vegan FAQ
- Finally Feminism 101
- Daughter of the Ring of Fire
- PETA Files
- Women of Color Blog
- Renegade Evolution
- Pithy Bitch
- Prosper
- Bookish
- Sentencing Project
- View Entire Blogroll
Important Message:
Order a FREE vegetarian starter kit at GoVeg.com
I agree that the angry voices are the point people, and they are every bit a part of any movement as are the moderated voices (like mine). I agree that we can always improve how we express ourselves but it makes no sense to try to become someone we are not.
True courage is shown by those who are not afraid of appearing like fools, crazies, obsessed, those who won’t let go even when ridiculed, marginalized, minimized. The outspoken animal rights person will say what she thinks even when she knows her friends and family will nudge each other and roll their eyes, even when larger populations will skewer her in print by painting her as a nutcase not worth listening to.
Most of us want to be liked, or at least treated neutrally. It takes a special courage to keep saying what others do not want to hear, risking friendships and long-time relationships. But if someone doesn’t take that lead position there won’t be a place for the rest of us who are not so courageous.
Wow! Nicely said Elaine
CommentLuv: warwak recently wrote Principal tells PETA: Kids hunt, get over it
No, I will not soften my tone. My tone is not the problem.
I see this same argument repeated in other movements; atheists such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers are admonished for being too “brash”, “obnoxious”, and “loudmouthed”; feminist concern trolls helpfully inform feminists that we’re too “shrill” and “radical”, etc. I just don’t buy it. No matter what our tone is like, people who don’t like our message, won’t like our message. Period. And by accepting that criticism - basically, that we’re too strident in advocating for the rights of women, animals, GLBT, etc. - we’re allowing our enemies to frame the debate.
What really gets me is when the criticism comes from other advocates. Sure, a softer, subtler approach can better persuade some people, but not all. We need moderates and radicals alike, because our audience isn’t homogeneous. I get the feeling that advocates who buy into this reasoning mean well, but have allowed themselves to be fooled by the “concern trolls” - that is, anti-animal liberationists, anti-feminists, etc., who don’t really care about the effectiveness of our message, but just want us to stfu already.
Thanks for posting this, it’s a topic that’s been on my mind a lot lately.
Thank you kelly, for making the point that this anti-tone argument is oft used to squash the voices of other, often related movements. The tone argument is ridiculous. It’s not the tone they dislike, it’s the message.
“I get the feeling that advocates who buy into this reasoning mean well, but have allowed themselves to be fooled”
I agree. The sad thing is that through their well-meaning intentions, they’ve actually done harm to the movement by alienating or purging the core. When they discount the people with the most passion, they destroy the movement from within. They make it easier for the opposition to silence animal advocates.
It’s not violence to say the truth. Violence is to moderate what can be said and how it can be said.
Propaganda is not democratic. It is not argumentative. It only tries to sell you something. That’s why we turn the volume down. But if instead of propaganda they put on air a decent debate, i’ll turn up.
Quote:
“I agree with the quote that we do need moderates, we need people who can help gently persuade consumers to eat less meat and be nicer to animals. However, we need ‘extremists’ too. Abolitionists are the core of our movement, not the superfluous.”
I think you nailed it here. This makes sense logically and ethically, if in fact, we are to take seriously our duties to animals - welfarism is inconsistent, and ought to be challenged as such. Unfortunately we are criticized from omnivores and welfarists alike. This is done out of prudence no doubt.
I think that welfarism suggests improving human beings - our character - in the Kantian sense: We have a natural duty to be kind to animals therefore our actions are wrong - our cruelty implies negative things about our species. The animals themselves do not appear to be the core of that movement or else “humanely” converting a moral person into a product would be seen as the contradiction that it is.
CommentLuv: Alex recently wrote The trials of home life.
If killing animals is murder, then I’m a mass murderer for killing literally thousands of tiny, terrified arthropods in a matter of days so I could keep them from eating my vegetable garden. Unless arthropods don’t count… but that would be speciesism/sizism.
Syera,
a) I said “meat is murder.” I did not say ‘killing animals is murder.’
b) Think about the labels we give to the action of killing human beings: there are times when it’s justified, such as in self defense, defending another, or when it’s reasonable to fear for your life. We don’t call those times murder. We call it self-defense or some such. Then there are times when killing humans is not justified and then we call that murder.
It’s the same with animals. Meat is not justified. There is no good reason to kill animals for meat. Meat is wholly unnecessary and there’s no reason to kill animals for meat unless there is absolutely no other food source.
But in your case, there may be a good reason to kill insects to protect your food. You need to eat plants to survive; you don’t need to eat animals to survive. You have a right to defend your food source against others who might eat it. Now, killing invaders may not always be justified. It’s certainly not justified to kill a dog who is digging in your garden. But if you’ve tried alternate methods to protect your food from insects and nothing works, you might be justified in killing them. And you’re almost certainly justified in killing insects who are physically, immediately threatening you, like a tick or mosquito sucking your blood. Do you see the difference?
The first vegan advocate I met, a long time ago, was loud and brash - in my face. I tuned him out and he probably set me back ten years or more. Had he approached me with a more respectful tone, and listened to what I said rather than cutting me off or only thinking about his reply, I may have gone vegan, or at least started my path to veganism much earlier, and spared thousands of animals from suffering and untimely death.
I have always remembered that in my own advocacy. I have tried to keep my anger in check, and to question whether it was legitimate or whether it was a proxy emotion because it was easier than admitting sadness and/or mustering compassion for those who did bad things.
In any case, one can certainly be brutally honest and stick to one’s principles while being respectful of others, and trying to understand - not necessarily agree with - their perspectives. There are often powerful forces influencing people’s attitudes and behaviors. I think of the The Pig Farmer by John Robbins, a true story of a man who severely mistreated animals and had nothing but contempt for animal advocates. It turms out that his behavior was a way of blocking out the pain of a lost companion animal when he was a child. Through Mr. Robbin’s gentle persuasion, the farmer changed his ways. He got out of the pig farming business and only kept a few pigs around to show others how wonderful they were.
Also -
- One can be a loud-mouthed, rude moderate or a soft-spoken, considerate abolitionist.
- There is a broad continuum between angry and vehement and “asking people nicely” - a phrase that, in the context of the post, connotes being meek and almost apologetic. One can be polite, considerate, and respectful, and listen empathically, yet be firm, principled, and effective.
CommentLuv: Gary recently wrote Some Worthwhile Online Things to Visit
Syera’s implied “logic” is: “Since I’ve taken pencils from work home, I may as well commit grand larceny.”
CommentLuv: Gary recently wrote Some Worthwhile Online Things to Visit
Gary,
You wrote “I may have gone vegan, or at least started my path to veganism much earlier” because you’d rather blame a confrontational activist than yourself. You made your own choices and you chose when to go vegan. Don’t blame other people for your choices.
Rational, kind people come to veganism in their own time. Some take longer than others. I took a long time to finally go vegan after 25 years of vegetarianism. We all get there, just some faster than others. A few claim they would have come faster if some other person in their past hadn’t been so rude. Well, that’s just an excuse.
Perhaps it’s true that some people get their faster through politeness. It’s also likely true that others get their faster through rudeness (heard of something called ‘tough love’?), but it’s not the point. The point is animal exploitation is wrong. Plain and simple. And just because some humans need someone to gently hold their hand and lead them to the truth doesn’t change that fact. The truth is there and we each chose our path to it .
Meat eaters are like drug addicts. Some stop cold turkey, some phase it out, some need serious counseling, other’s just ‘get it.’ Interventions work for some people. Some never change no matter what method is used. Habit isn’t conscious thought. Meat-eating and animal exploitation are such deeply ingrained habits that the comparison with drug addicts is a good one. Meat-eaters do not think or act clearly. You’ve said it yourself, calling it a ‘moral schizophrenia.’
Don’t blame rude activists for the decisions exploiters make. It’s not fair and it’s not right. If anything, blame all the people who do nothing, who never try any method at all to change immoral behavior. Blame the animal exploiters who make it easier to stay a meat-eater and animal user. Blame the government for supporting animal exploiters. Blame the meek vegans who never spoke up. Blame our culture of violence. Blame whoever you want, but don’t blame people who are actually trying to make a difference. Even if they get it wrong sometimes, sometimes they get it right. And more importantly, at least they’re trying.
Here’s an example of my point. Rape is wrong. No matter how anyone says it, whether they’re polite or angry or happy or rude doesn’t change the fact that rape is wrong. Rape is always wrong regardless of how people talk about it. And it’s so fundamentally wrong, that it would absurd if a rapist said, “You know, I would have stopped raping women ten years earlier if people hadn’t been so rude when they told me rape was wrong.”
That’s exactly how people who say we should temper our tone sound. They sound like whiners who would rather blame rude activists than confront the deeply ingrained personal and cultural beliefs and habits that allow immoral acts. They sound absurd.
I’ve read the Pig Farmer story and to me, that is not a story of Robbins’ compassion and how that man just needed one nice activist instead of a rude one. No, the story is about a man who finally understands the truth about the suffering he has caused. John did not inspire that man’s revelation though kind actions or non-rude activism. In fact, John lied to him! That man did it himself, on his own time frame. He deserves the credit for his own transformation. John just happened to be the person there, a silent referent, if you will, willing to listen at a key moment when the man was ready to change. John could have been anyone. The man was ready to change. The pig farmer came to his conclusions himself. Don’t let John steal the credit. The farmer did it himself. And he may never had gotten to that point without having had history with rude activists who forced him to think more deeply about his actions. And he may have prolonged his revelation if John hadn’t been fairly silent at that time. But ultimately, that man was ready to change himself and change he did. If either changed the other, that man changed Robbins, not the other way around. Robbins left with a new understanding and compassion for humans. From the story [emphasis added]:
We all need to take responsibility for our actions. Loud-mouthed activists and delayed vegans alike must take responsibility. And neither should shy away from the truth: the truth that both humans and animals can feel pain and the truth that neither humans nor animals deserve to feel unnecessary pain.
I don’t disagree with you when you say “One can be polite, considerate, and respectful, and listen empathically, yet be firm, principled, and effective.”
However I do think that an emphasis on certain types of activism over others tends to weaken the movement as a whole. People get inspired and want to make change. We ought to let them, because that’s how change happens. Movements grow with passion and action, not only with “gentle persuasion.”
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with gentle persuasion if that’s what you want to do. I’m saying it’s just one of many, many tools for social change. And we shouldn’t discount the other tools. We’re not all powerful persuaders, but we do all have some skills that wee can use to help out. And we’re obliged to use those skills to help the movement.
Just imagine what kind of rights women would have today if instead of marching and yelling and protesting loudly and breaking the law the suffragists were “polite, considerate, and respectful, and listen[ed] empathically”. Women still wouldn’t have the vote.
Imagine a civil rights movement wherein people of color gently coaxed whites into behaving like decent human beings though careful conversation. It wouldn’t happen. Can you see it? The Klan just one days says, “You know, since those Black people were so nice and rational, now I’m going to stop hate-mongering.” It’s absurd. That’s not how revolutions happen. That’s not how social change happens.
More and more loud-mouthed activists are a sign the movement is growing. It’s a good thing.
Hi Elaine,
On the one hand you seem to be saying that as activists we should act a certain general way, implying that it’s better, at least in many cases, to cast politeness aside and go with a more “in your face”approach. On the other hand, you’re saying it doesn’t matter what we do because people will get to their decisions on their own time, in their own way, independent of our actions.
I disagree - politely and respectively - on both counts.
In my activism over the last several years, I have noticed, very consistently, that when I or others talk to someone in a very accusatory and/or angry tone about their meat-eating, they tend to retaliate with defensive or retaliatory remarks, dig in their heels, and/or become more resistant to our message. This finding is not surprising; that’s just human nature.
OTOH, when I show sincere respect to someone and try to understand their point of view, they are much more receptive, listen to what I have to say, and are more likely to take action, and take the message to heart. So this is the path I have chosen. Sort of a “Hate the sin, love the sinner” aproach. It’s not always easy - it’s often tempting to let someone “have it” - but for me it’s most effective and it feels more like I am being the change I want to see.
I agree that we have to take responsibility for our actions - that should apply to our activism as well. The way we act and speak has an influence on others. No one is truly independent. We form our ideas and behaviors from a wealth of different sources, including our parents, our friends, our co-workers, and the society into which we’re born. That is why people with essentially the same DNA have such diverse attitudes and customs from country to country.
On a more personal scale, while it would be nice to take total credit for my transformation to veganism, and my continuing evolution in my relationship with animals and the earth, I have to give enormous credit to countless people and organizations who have opened my eyes, inspired me, encouraged me, and yes sometimes cajoled me (though that can be done with love).
I have to disagree with you: I do honestly feel that if that first advocate had aproached me (and my friends) in a less hostile way, it could have made a big difference in when I started going vegan. I’m not trying to pin blame on anyone, or make excuses; that is my honest assesment based on my perceptions of human reactions and my reactions when people are trying to influence me.
An approach that works for advocating to meat-eaters may not work when dealing with rapists. Rape is a very personal, intimate, power exertion and violence. When my mother in law goes shopping to buy chicken, she is not thinking in those terms. I don’t think my best approach would be to talk to her like I would talk to a serial rapist. Her decisions are based on habit, the way she grew up, ignorance, fear (of not getting enough nutrients or satisfaction in her diet, or of radical change) and other factors. She’s not trying to violently exert her will on an animal.
Though even for rapists or other violent criminals, often their transformation occurs not in a vacuum but by being inspired by reigious texts, insightful counselors, and so forth. Our criminal justice system does little in the way of reform and rehabilitiation, though. But since I’m not an expert on counseling and rehabiliating rapists, for the purpose of discussion I’ll confine my remarks to animal advocacy, particularly to the general populace.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on The Pig Farmer. As Mr. Robbins points out, he was a catalyst. The farmer may have been stuck in his ways for years, perhaps his whole life, if not for the gentle intervention of someone like Mr. Robbins. Often, simply listening is a powerful tool, as the story shows. Mr. Robbins is quite humble, so doesn’t want to take too much credit. But surely he deserves some. I find the story inspiring and educational.
With regard to humility, I have to always be aware that I, like anyone, certainly have no lock on truth, so there’s always a possibility that any of my opinions are flawed. Since we’re all imperfect, and none of us is prescient, I have to remember that while I have my opinions, they’re constricted by my own imperfections as well as my unique, limited experiences. So I’m thankful and appreciative for every animal advocate’s efforts, each of them striving as best they can to bring about a world in which all sentient beings are treated with respect and compassion. Together, this organic panoply of approaches may be the best approach.
CommentLuv: Gary recently wrote Some Worthwhile Online Things to Visit
Oops - meant to say “respectfully” not “respectively.”
CommentLuv: Gary recently wrote Some Worthwhile Online Things to Visit
Gary, you say: “On the one hand you seem to be saying that as activists we should act a certain general way, implying that it’s better, at least in many cases, to cast politeness aside and go with a more “in your face”approach. On the other hand, you’re saying it doesn’t matter what we do because people will get to their decisions on their own time, in their own way, independent of our actions.”
No, I imply neither. I have been very clear, but I’ll say it again another way:
Meat-eaters are not a monolith. There is no ONE perfect method for converting them to veganism. Vegans are not a monolith. There is no ONE perfect type of activism they should employ.
Humans are varied. They require varied strategies to convince them to change.
And the fact that some activists are loud-mouths only suggests that they are passionate. The fact that there are enough loud-mouth activists that some people try to shut them up suggests that the movement is growing. These are both good things and should be understood in the spirit in which they are intended: to produce a better, safer world for animals.
You say, “I have noticed, very consistently, that when I or others talk to someone in a very accusatory and/or angry tone about their meat-eating, they tend to retaliate with defensive or retaliatory remarks, dig in their heels, and/or become more resistant to our message.”
I have noticed, very consistently, that people do not make significant change in their lives until they are confronted with the new idea multiple times in multiple ways, some of which may feel uncomfortable. I fear you are making the error of assuming the events immediately precipitating a change are the direct causes of the change. Correlation =/ causation.
Hi Elaine,
I don’t know that loudness directly correlates with passion.
I definitely agree that people usually have to be confronted with a new, challenging idea multiple times, and often in a variety of ways, and that sometimes they have to be uncomfortable, before making changes in their lives. IMHO, none of this implies that one has to be rude or disrespectful when advocating to those people.
At the risk of getting way off track, and into tactical details…
IMHO, the discomfort that occurs in targets of animal activism is largely a manifestation of guilt, of knowledge - perhaps at a deep level - that they are committing moral transgressions. This will occur regardless of whether one’s activism is ultra-nice or ultra-mean. Being aware of people’s capacity to construct defensive rationalizations for nearly any behavior, I try to not give them additional reasons for doing so, but rather show them that the way to peace - both inner peace and peace toward all living creatures - is simply to not act in ways that violate their consciences and basic, nearly universal moral principles. IOW, stop doing the morally troubling behavior and the defensiveness (about that behavior) will disappear, and the opportunity for significant, lasting, positive change will open up. I also try to let people know that their defensiveness is actually a good sign, that they have active consciences. I usually also point out that I went through the whole defensiveness and ratioinalization thing myself, which I hope affirms that a) I’m no different from them; I used to like meat, and I don’t have super willpower or anything, b) their reactions, while not the right thing to do, are normal. Then I try to delve into the reasons they are doing things that they know are wrong (which can be a complicated topic), and - like most animal activists, I suppose - help show them how to find and cook vegan food, and so forth - help them with practical solutions.
I would like to respond to the concern in your last sentence. I’m acutely aware of the fallacy of confusing correlation with causation. Do know that my conclusions about animal activism and its effects are not based on shallow, superficial observations of immediate reactions but on years of deliberation, watching people’s evolution, tracking the short- and long-term effects of my own activism, delving into sometimes uncomfortable Socratic self-dialog, conducting interviews for articles, engaging in discussions with all sorts of people (including pig farmers), reading literature on the subject, and so forth. These views have evolved over time, and probably will continnue to evolve. I suspect you and other activists are going through siimilar processes. Reasonable people may use due diligence in studying a matter and disagree - especially if the topic is complex and filled with unknowns. By the same token, any of us may be prone to fallacious reasoning from time to time. So I appreciate your “keeping me honest.”
Let me end this on an up note: I greatly appreciate your activism. Your dedication, knowledge, and sheer output are inspirational and awesome. I just thought I should say that. Sometimes online discussions have a nasty way of making everything seem harsher and of filtering out any simpatico and respect that would be conveyed and noticed in a face-to-face or even phone conversation.
CommentLuv: Gary recently wrote Some Worthwhile Online Things to Visit
Hi Elaine,
I got to thinking…
Could it be that angry, in-your-face activism has a non-causal or incidental relationship with people becoming vegan? It may be that when people turn vegan at some point after having encountered loud, angry activists, they do so not because of those activists but in spite of them. Perhaps they were subject to friendly activists down the road. Or perhaps they had been thinking about activism, stalemated when they reacted defensively to rude activists, and then recovered.
I’ve seen both of these dynamics many times - and in fact they happened to me.
If we peruse people’s stories of how they became vegan (which are scattered across the Internet), we don’t find anyone saying, “This guy yelled in my face, and that was the turning point.” But we read lots of accouts of people who cite a mentor, or a friendly person at work who was gentle but unwaveringly persistent and truthful. Very often, vegans will credit literature or videos, which present harsh realities and grim truths, but talk to the reader/viewer in polite and respectful tones.
Each person is unique but we also have commonalities. Advertisers understand this. It would be difficult to get anything done if each of us was totally, randomly different from everyone else. Dale Carnegie lays out some of these commonalities, especially as they relate to persuading people, in his book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People:” People resist criticism; people appreciate respect; people can detect insincerity; people respond positively to friendliness and kindness; and so forth. This doesn’t mean we can never criticize or tell a white lie, but at least we should take these basic human traits into account when advocating.
I think groups who leaflet a lot, such as COK and Vegan Outreach, realize this. Their guidelines encourage leafleters to smile, be polite, listen earnestly to objections, and so forth. They don’t say “yell at people and call them murderers.”
I leaflet quite often, and a number of times I’ve seen leafleters forego an opportunnity to convey information and change hearts and minds because they were rude. The passers-by retaliated in kind and never heard or read a word about animals. On some of these occasions, I stepped in, apologized to the people on the street, was nice to them, and explained why we were here and the urgent plight of the animals, and they gladly took the vegan literature.
I think all this is having an effect:
- Vegan products are spreading like wildfire. Even in little grocery stores in tiny remote towns, you can usually find veggie burgers and one or more varieties of soy milk. The increase in the variety of vegan foods is nearly mesmerizing. I can hardly keep up.
- Recent studies show that about 10 percent of teenage girls and 7 percent of females overall consider themselves veg*an. While some of the respondents who call themselves veg probably cheat, the trend and the numbers are encouraging, if not fabulous. A recent Washington Post story showed how veg*anism was becoming very mainstream in high schools; each year it raises fewer eyebrows and is more accepted. Each percentage point rise is like a threshold that has a ripple effect in the economy and society as a whole.
- Food provider ARAMARK reports that 24% of college students want vegan meals. When I went to college the number was probably close to zero.
- My wife went to a farmer’s market in a little town in Florida; there were lots of prepared dishes labeled “vegan.”
- A few years ago, merely having mock dishes was enough to get your Asian restaurant listed in COK’s veg-dc guide to veg-friendly restaurants (the last issue of which had 350 listings). Now, mock meat options are so common in area Asian restaurants that it’s not enough to warrant an entry in the guide.
- KFC, practically the epitome of fast-food meat, is adding a vegan main dish to their menu in 461 locations. With some promotion, this number could grow and grow.
- Reforms, by and large, are passing handily and becomming more expansive.
The peaceful revolution is happening before our eyes. Taking everything into account, it practically is the case that we’re transforming the country “by asking people nicely.” There is a beautiful, humble, Gandhi-like power in that.
CommentLuv: Gary recently wrote Some Worthwhile Online Things to Visit
Gary,
It sounds like you’d rather debate the effectiveness of one type of activism than discuss my main points. You have one favorite method, which is, in my opinion, a rather passive approach. I think it’s worthwhile for those who want to pursue it, but I don’t think it’s the ONE, best method. And it certainly isn’t well suited to all personality types. (I can leaflet for about 4 hours and then I’m done and I can’t stand to do it again for at least a week or two, usually months. It drains me. I am much better at writing than speaking.) Different types of activism require different strategies and all those relate to the specific time, place, and social context.
I don’t feel like you’re interpreting me in a charitable manner. I almost feel like you’re intentionally misinterpreting me in order to promote one type of activism. My blog post above is in response to this statement “animal advocates also need to soften their tone and limit their expectations.”
You’ve illustrated how the movement has been effective within our own lifetimes, so what leads you to believe we ought to ’soften our tone’ since it’s working? Why should we “limit our expectations”? The variety within the animal rights movement is clearly working.
I’ll repeat some of the key statements I made above:
“I believe there’s too much emphasis on the consumer in the animal rights movement. All too often we’re asking consumers to change their behavior and we’re not getting at the root causes of the problem - the producers.”
Sometimes it’s better to work top-down than bottom-up, though a collective effort at both ends probably works best.
“We ought to encourage more vegan entrepreneurs to merge their vegan passion, activism, and lifestyle with their work.”
Again, why not merge consumer based activism with professional marketing? You can bet when I open Las Vegan that our ads will have a similar effect on consumers as vegan outreach campaigns. The goal is the same - produce more vegan consumers.
“My tone is not the problem. The problem is animal exploitation. ”
My anger is justified. Your argument to quell it or express it in certain ways and not others is purely an argument based on effectiveness. It’s a pragmatic argument. And it has some merit in some contexts, but it doesn’t address the real issue. The real issue here is that my anger isn’t creating more omnivores. My anger isn’t exploiting animals. My anger isn’t the problem.
Times change. The more the movement grows, the more that anger will be accepted and appreciated, even demanded.