- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Animal Rights
Violence Never the Answer for Advancing Animal Rights
Dear Colleagues:
Unfortunately, there are people who identify themselves as animal advocates who claim that the solution to the problem of animal exploitation is violence.
Some of these people have actually engaged in acts of violence against institutional exploiters. Others incite acts of violence by calling on people to use “intimidation” against animal exploiters or to make animal exploiters “fearful” of retaliatory violence.
Putting aside the moral/spiritual aspects of violence, those who promote violence are deeply confused about the basic economics of animal exploitation. Institutional users engage in animal exploitation because the public demands it. Institutional users are, for the most part, indifferent to whether they are selling beef or bananas. They will put their capital wherever they’ll get the best return.
Most people regard animal use as “normal” in the same sense that breathing and drinking water are considered as “normal.” They demand animal products. If you destroy ten slaughterhouses today, as long as demand remains, ten more slaughterhouses will be built or ten existing ones will expand production (and probably make production more economically efficient). If you shut down a supplier of animals used for vivisection, and the public continues to support vivisection, which it clearly does, then another supplier will emerge. So as a purely practical matter, violence is a strategy that cannot work.
As long as animal use is regarded as normal and as not raising a fundamental moral question, nothing will ever change. But we are not going to get people to think about animal use through intimidation, fear, and acts of violence. Education, if it is to be effective, can never be violent; it can never seek to intimidate or make people fearful. It must open their hearts and their minds. The non-violent strategy is anything but passive; it involves our working actively, constantly, and creatively to shift a fundamental paradigm—the notion that animals are things, resources, property; that they are exclusively means to human ends.
And it is clear that our efforts to educate are working. There is a dialogue emerging about the use of animals that goes beyond questions of “humane” treatment. There is a constant stream of stories about how people are becoming increasingly aware of the moral schizophrenia that characterizes the human/non-human relationship.
Those who advocate violence are not only confused about basic economic issues, but they are hindering this progress because they provide an easy target that gives people an excuse to dismiss the issue of animal exploitation. In this respect, the pro-violence people are similar to those who promote sexism.
Would Martin Luther King have campaigned for civil rights, claiming “I’d rather go naked than sit in the back of the bus”?
Of course not.
Would King or Gandhi have urged us to “intimidate” others and to make others “fearful” that they were going to become victims of violence?
Of course not.
Sometimes, when I see some of the things that the pro-violence people say or do (or when I see a video with a woman stripping “for the animals”), I shake my head and wonder what people could do that could be worse in terms of getting the public to take this issue seriously. Indeed, it seems that these people are trying to sabotage meaningful change.
For further discussion of these issues, listen to the Commentary I did on this subject, or read A Comment on Violence, More on Violence and Animal Rights, and On Violence and Vivisection, all of which are on this site.
I also discuss the issue of violence in my forthcoming book, which I co-authored with Dr. Robert Garner, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which will be published by Columbia University Press in May 2010.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Yes and no...
Education, dialogue and debate are truly the way to go. Yet, for those zealots who demand change through violence , the protection of myself and family are paramount over *anyone*.
In the broader context, MLK is correct. You may kill a hater, but you cannot kill hate in general. On an individual level, the hater who initiates violence against someone and or his family both deserves and needs to be stopped. Period.
That the hate which is espoused may continue in others cannot be immediately changed. However, stopping the violent one(s) does force the others to utilize non violent means.
"...It’s is a cliché to say, but it is obvious, violence never works… Violence is never the solution…"
This is not entirely true. I point to World War II as an example. Had the Allies not opposed the Axis powers through military force, the world would be a very different place today.
The same is true for defense of yourself and your family.
On War...
Hello Olderman,
I agree with you on this point, if the allies did not oppose the totalitarian regimes, the world would be a different place, in the same way that it would be different if we had responded the oppression of those tyrants with a non-violent stance. We cannot forget that World War II is a perfect example of the idea that violence begets more violence, it was a direct result of hate. It would be "fantastic" if we live in a world where everything could be solved through violence, such as the exploitation of animals , but certainly that’s not the answer. You said everything that needed to be said in your first sentence “Education, dialogue and debate are truly the way to go.”… These are the paths to be followed, but I would add two more, non-violence, and the result of its acceptance, veganism . =)
(Sorry if I made any grammatical error.)
Thank you for your time
and remember…
THE WORLD IS VEGAN. If you want it. =)
Gabriel Garmendia
Hmmm...
"... in the same way that it would be different if we had responded the oppression of those tyrants with a non-violent stance..."
Munich is where that was tried prior to the invasion of Poland and the subsequent development of WWII. During the talks at Munich, Hitler concluded that the European governments were weak and not likely to oppose him. The U.S. was deep into isolationism, not to be aroused until Pearl Harbor.
My point here is one of recognition. To recognize that an individual, group or nation is violent then do nothing is to open the doors wide to conflagrations large and small.
Peace is truly the objective. If the opposition will have peace only at your expense, then there is no peace.
verbal abuse is violent!
how can you claim non violence, when you are violent with your words? for the few months i have been following you on twitter , i have noticed that the majority of your tweets are directed at animals adovcates, such as peta & hsus, yes i understand that you disagree with them but why not suggest ways that they improve rather than spouting violent tweets?
Re: verbal abuse is violent!
Vegananon - I absolutely agree with you. While I am philosophically aligned with the abolitionist stance, I am deeply troubled by the haughty attitudes of many abolitionist advocates and the culture of hate, perfectionism, superiority and scorn that this movement is fostering within the AR community. We can advocate for vegan education and abolitionist principles without spewing hate at others. If peaceful education is what we should aspire to outside of the vegan community, it should also be what is employed within it.
Lets say it together... and laugh.
Violent Tweets?... Seriously?
I'm glad I'm not the only one
As effective a communication tool I'm sure Twitter is becoming in the world of activism, I'm clearly WELL behind the curve in that I have no real concept of what on Earth these people are talking about.
If you'll excuse me, I'm about to unfollow a violent retweet.
my new band name!
Thanks
Are we reading the same tweets?
Prof. Francione does indeed suggest improvements to PETA and HSUS in his tweets (e.g. asking that they advocate veganism , that they stop promoting single-issue campaigns, that PETA stops its sexist campaigns, et al.). Where is the violence in expressing legitimate criticism of these huge organizations that profit off of guilt- money from people they could instead be educating to stop exploiting animals ?
Criticism can be help in improving
I've followed a lot of the tweets and blogs, and have to say, I've never read a criticism that could be called either violent or excessive. Nearly all are criticisms of actions that do not help animals , these actions entrench the idea that people can exploit animals "ethically". They usually include positive suggestions that to really speak and act for animals, we need to understand, and help others understand, that animals are not here for us, so not belong to us, and have the right to be free of our exploitation.
Criticism is not Violence
Stating that PETA is unjustified in killing healthy animals or in using sexism in its campaigns or in giving awards to slaughterhouse designers is not violence.
Stating that it is deeply problematic that HSUS does not have a "Go Vegan" campiagn or that it promotes "happy" meat /animal products is not violence.
Speaking truthfully to large, wealthy, powerful corporations is a form of non-violence, actually.
But if you're upset, then I invite you to unfollow. There is no sense in exposing yourself to what you consider as violence and what I consider as my obligation to say.
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
www.AbolitionistApproach.com
Expert
I find your dedication to your causes admireable even though I disagree.
Do you realize that putting the word Expert under image really undermines you and your image?
Not a personall attack , I am just saying that it probably hurts the weightiness (is that a word?) of your posts.
Cheers and good luck.
Expert.
It would be like me joining a forum on martial arts and putting
"really really tough guy" under my name.
Most will chuckle and say "yeah right"!
Re Expert
Maybe you should talk to Opposing Views about that "Expert" title. I think that many authors are titled "verified expert". I could be mistaken, but I don't think that authors have any control over that.
And by the way, I think you're really reaching for reasons to criticize the author.
I agree
I agree on both counts. The title is given by Opposing Views (and yeah, that was really stretching it to muster up something resembling criticism).
That is good news.
That makes much more sense.
Most people don't title themselves as Expert.
Usually the more experienced a person is or talented in a given field the more humble they become.
It makes much more sense now.
NO criticism intended. Just pointing out what seemed obvious to me.
I can understand why people are angry
Since the government does nothing against the exploitation and downright torture of animals for gluttony, greed, vanity ( fur industry), and entertainment (rodeos, animal fighting), it is understandable why some individuals get so angry the join groups like the ALF. However, I have to agree-it's not the answer. No matter how many animals they free, all these companies do is file insurance and get more. This got so wide spread the government enacted the AETA (Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act), which is the same what England has done. People get away with what they are allowed to get away with, so the solution-though slow and tedious and often takes a lot of hard work and research -is through legislation. If you get enough people involved and put ALL your energies in getting laws changed rather than pillaging facilities which accomplishes nothing-you address the causes and not just the symptom. Vandalism and stealing property should never be encouraged, but there are lawful ways of getting things changed.
Legislation Dead End-Go Vegan
Federal legislation is a dead end path unless you have millions of dollars to fight the huge Ag, Pharma lobbies, etc. State level legislation is a more plausible avenue. However, unless you would have to get a law enacted making it illegal to use animals for any purpose. Anything else is a big fail.
Eliminating demand for animal products is the only way to free animals from exploitation, abuse and murder . Go vegan and educate others to do the same (in a kind, compassionate way please).
Opening Hearts and Minds
Professor Francione,
I am a law student focusing my studies in Animal Law with the goal of helping to end the property status and exploitation of animals (yes, I embraced the most important form of activism, veganism , 15 years ago and have been doing public vegan education activism for a few years). I understand the legal road to ending the property status of animals will not be an easy one.
You state in your opinion article above, “But we are not going to get people to think about animal use through intimidation, fear, and acts of violence. Education, if it is to be effective, can never be violent; it can never seek to intimidate or make people fearful. It must open their hearts and their minds.”
Recently, I had an experience that I think is important to consider when we are discussing how best to educate the public on animal exploitation/rights. A couple weeks ago I was intrigued by your opinions regarding single issue campaigns (and posted a question for you on this site about it, but the thread has apparently crashed). I have read your blogs, etc. and see you say: “An example of a campaign that would fit this description [a single-issue campaign you do not think would confuse the public]: The prohibition of all animal use in circuses for the reason that it is immoral and cannot be justified irrespective of economic benefit. Advocates should be clear that the uses of animals for other forms of entertainment or other purposes, including for food , are similarly objectionable.”
-and-
“Another example of a campaign that would fit the description: A prohibition on the use of any animal for a particular sort of experiment coupled with a clear demand for the abolition of all vivisection.”
I understand that you see vegan education as the most effective and that you don’t advocate single issue campaigns (that meet your criteria) as “strongly [as you] favor vegan/abolitionist education.” I feel educating people at the points of exploitation (with an abolitionist message) is important and feel the majority of the public is not confused by this. As you mention in a blog, many activists (myself included) have made groundbreaking connections with people at these types of events that has introduced the person to the abolitionist argument and got them to begin thinking about their part in animal exploitation and the intrinsic rights of animals (much as vegan education does).
With these thoughts on single-issue campaigns, I recently offered suggestions of single issue campaigns, including the circus and testing facility example that you mention, that could be considered abolitionist (as they meet your criteria) for discussion on some abolitionist blogs/ facebook pages (pages where people mainly quote/paraphrase you and link to your webpage). For these suggestions and engaging in discussion on the matter, I was treated condescendingly and rudely by more than one of these “abolitionist educators.” I am aware that in the article above you are speaking mainly of criminal violence, property damage, etc., but would like your comments on violence in approach to others at a more personal level, , i.e. regarding nonviolence in personal interactions and general vegan abolition education approach. I am concerned of how we, as a movement, are going to educate people when we don’t treat them (or each other!) in a respectful, tactful, and compassionate way. Related to tact, recently a “substitute letter” to the ice-skater Weir was circulated on many of these same sites. Apparently in order to educate the skater and affect change in his exploitation of animals, the letter went into great lengths about how morally superior it is to be an abolitionist vegan and included many "I want you to..."s, talked about legal personhood for non-humans, and suggested the skater to go home and throw out all of his clothes and products that were animal-derived. In my experience, this approach to someone who has not thought much of animal exploitation before (the majority of the public) is overwhelming and helps isolate conscientious vegans in the public eye as “fanatical” and “holier than thou.” While I am certainly not against telling people we are discussing these issues with that we think ending all animal exploitation is the right thing to do (I am consistent and do this), I think how we approach the general public, non-vegans, and non-abolitionists is extremely important and needs to be done well and above all, with nonviolent communication techniques that are likely to produce results (“open their hearts and minds”). Your thoughts?
Thank You,
Mark
BooHoo
What are you gonna do when you realize that plants have feelings too??? I mean - I'm just sayin. How many pets or animals do you care for? Yes - there are instances in this world where animals are not treated right - there are instances where there are millions of things - done to animals - done to people - that are not right or fair. But people like you butt into something because it gives you warm and fuzzy feelings and end up causing more animals to suffer than if you would have just kept your naive mouth shut - and spend this misdirected energy towards something more productive - like adopting a pet - taking it for walks - loving and caring for it. The horse slaughter issue - there are now approximately 170,000 unwanted horses each year that are being abandoned - starved to death - fates far more cruel and inhumane than slaughter. People are far too eager to put human emotions onto animals. Horses don't fear death - they have no concept of it - what they fear is pain. If you want to eat veggies (although I would love to hear your argument about how it is O.K. to rip plants from the soil ending their life in such a cruel way) that is your right - but it is also my right to eat meat if I choose to. Only people with empty shallow misguided lives want to constantly butt into everyone elses and try and run it. Geez
Im kind of a joker
Back in the day at a Grateful Dead concert (was on tour) I was camped next to a Vegan food vendor who had lots of animal rights posters (yucky images) posted up. We jokingly made up a few Broccoli rights and Potato rights posters by hand and marker and sold beef burritos to help pay for tour gas.
We creemed the competition. My friend also did well selling "I would rather be at a KISS concert" stickers.
No Joke!
Markv-Opening Hearts & Minds
My organization is transitioning to include a Go Vegan campaign and addressing single issue campaigns. Instead of being embraced or encouraged, I have either been ignored or criticized in the rudest terms, neither of which is helpful.
I am moving ahead anyway, because my motivation is to do the very best I can for the animals , not please other Vegans (an impossible task if I ever heard one).
Shame on these nasty Vegans, and thank you, Markv for asking for a comment on this type of behavior. It will be interesting to see if you get it.
Curious
I follow you on Twitter, assuming that you're the same @porttowngirl (aka Vivian Grant, founder and president of International Fund for Horses). I haven't seen any activists--particularly abolitionist activists--either criticizing you or engaging with you rudely. I've watched you retweet other abolitonists' tweets and when you announced several days ago that you were transitioning your org from welfarist to abolitionist, a bunch of us retweeted your assertion in support . I just rechecked the past week and half's tweets to make sure I didn't miss anything, so I'm quite confused right now and wondering where you've purportedly encountered anything other than acceptance?
Civil Discourse
I fully agree that we ought always to be civil in our discourse with everyone, including other animal advocates.
That does not mean that we should not ever be critical. If, for example, a vegan is engaged in anti- fur campaign, it is quite appropriate to point out to him/her that such a campaign, in addition to feeding sexism , conveys the wrong idea that fur is distinguishable from other animal products. That should not be pointed out in a rude or uncivil way, but it should be pointed out.
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
www.AbolitionistApproach.com
Thank you Professor Francione
Your voice is most refreshing.
In this article, your said: "Indeed, it seems that these people are trying to sabotage meaningful change ."
This is such an important point.
How can we ever have "meaningful change" when other vegans are working against us? We cannot give the public any extra reason to dismiss us. Our mission is to engage people and impart our truth. We cannot intimidate people into veganism .
Well said!
We need to educate--not intimidate!
Violence amounts to peeing into a river.
“We’ve got to face the fact that some people say you fight fire best with fire, but we say you put fire out best with water .” —Fred Hampton, Sr.
Violence amounts to peeing a river that is already overflowing, and insofar as violence is often met with increased state repression, it is more like pissing into the wind .
As an activist, Fred Hampton didn't repeat the paradigms of the oppressor in his work . He didn't just respond emotionally, he thought. When African-American children weren't getting the food they needed, he didn't go and take food out of the mouths of white children. He started a breakfast program. When African- Americans were unsafe in their homes, he didn't go out and make white people unsafe in theirs; he organized his communities for self-protection instead. He didn't promote racist violence in order to fight racist violence, he promoted nonviolent solidarity and organization. He didn't fight authoritarianism by behaving in authoritarian ways himself. He didn't walk backwards, he walked forwards. He reasoned; and he didn't just use reason to rationalize his own inclinations, he reasoned critically and accordingly.
Fred understood that equality is not a race to the bottom of the elevator shaft, everyone at everyone else's throat, it is a slow and arduous walk to the top of the stairs, each of us helping each of us along the way. Those who propose that we should only react, or that we should only act within our own inclinations are not thinking critically or acting radically. Those who propose that we should substitute nonviolent dialogue, education , critical thinking and hard work with violence, that we should swap water for fire to fight fire, are engaged in a refusal to reason, a refusal of radicalism and are contenting themselves, regardless of their intentions, with walking backwards.
As an abolitionist, I believe unequivocally (and act on) the view that all animals have a right not to be used as property. That includes the rights of the human child not to be forced to pick coffee. That includes the rights of the cow not to be forced to produce milk, the chicken not to make eggs and the bee not to produce honey. That includes the rights of the horse not to be ridden and the elephant not to be forced to entertain us.
That includes the rights of human beings not to be harassed, threatened or harmed unjustifiably to advance any political view of any kind.
That includes the rights of nonhuman animals not to be someone else's “educational opportunity”, a "tool to smite the oppressor economically" or any other use. The prospect that all animals have a right not to be used as property includes everything I have come to understand as “using another as property” and it probably includes things I have not yet come to understand. No one is perfect; what is important is that we're committed to continuing the struggle, within ourselves first and foremost.
The rights of animals not to be used as property, and veganism as the baseline for taking that right seriously, are not a checklist of rules per se. They are a framework and praxis by which I can engage myself and others in a critical but meaningful dialogue that raises us up together as a community and calls us to be better than we were there day before. We either respect the rights of all animals not to be used as our property, or we simply reproduce the existing paradigms of oppression.
As an abolitionist vegan , I'm nonviolent. Any abolitionist who claims that acting violently is the way to achieve the abolition of violent social relations is very misguided. I'm nonviolent, not because it always suits my inclinations to be nonviolent, but because that's what I owe other animals: my most careful, my most thoughtful, and my least harmful behaviour: my best. I am not interested in reacting against society , I am interested in transforming it. I am not interested in 'smiting the oppressor'; I am interested in helping other animals. Reason guides my work, but it is love, not hate, that animates it.
When advocates fail to question their own motivations and inclinations and engage in violent behaviour (whether the person in question is the object of our rage or our gain, whether the person is human or non) it is yet another in a long string of days that we lose the opportunity to take a step towards the sunlight of a nonviolent future. As an abolitionist vegan, I want nonhumans to go free, unequivocally, immediately and unconditionally. I promote the abolition, not the regulation of, animal use. I also oppose speciesism, racism , sexism and other forms of irrational prejudices. And although I won't end the system of animal slavery overnight, I only promote an end to the system by promoting veganism, not half-measures and reform, and not hysteria and violence. Nonviolence, careful reasoning, critical thinking, patience, and education are all guiding principles of my work.
That’s radical change .
Bees
I thought bees liked making honey.
Oh poooh!
Analysis Paralysis.
"Feeding into sexism ?" This man is going to do nothing.
Justice and nonviolence are for everybody
I agree on the civility of discourse. I also agree that we need to take a systemic approach that opposes all oppressions and proposes to replace racist , speciesist and other exploitative paradigms. I also agree with you that creative and nonviolent education is the answer, and it is the only basis for large-scale movement building.
In virtually every successful social justice movement in human history , education has played a central role, and no social justice movement has been successful without create a large-scale basis of supporters in the broader public. So, I further agree with you that social justice movements if they are to be effective must be inclusive, and scare tactics are anything but inclusive.
I thought that your books, Animals, Property and the Law and Rain Without Thunder were excellent examples of political economic work .
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/books/animals-property-and-the-law /
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/books/rain-without-thunder-the-ideology-of-the-animal-rights-movement /
Bob Torres' Making a Killing is also without a doubt one of the most extensive political economies to date just on the social transformation that abolition proposes and offers readers a solid blue-print for building a social justice movement for other animals .
http://www.amazon.ca/Making-Killing-Political-Economy-Animal/dp/1904859674
All three are terrific books and they all very clearly provide advocates with practical guidance about how to start changing the system. Changing individual hearts and minds about sexism , racism , economic exploitation and speciesism is the surest footing by which we might build the mass movement required to change the nature of social relations.
If a nonviolent society is what we're after, we can all start today just by taking the rights of others seriously (human and non), by going vegan , by promoting nonviolence, and by promoting solidarity. Thank you for all you have done and continue to do in this regard.
Vincent
PS: for those who want a poster/flier that really speaks to oppression and veganism more generally (and not just to the elite), I've always really liked this one of Gary's:
http://twitpic.com/xdbsq