May
2001
Welfare
and Liberation: Mutually Exclusive?
By Matt Ball
|
|
|
Expanding the Floor of the Cage
The Brazilian Landless Farmers movement
has a slogan: “Expand the floor of the cage before you try to break
out.” It is a way of saying that activists should try to improve
the status quo in order to have more room in which to work towards a
permanent solution. This belief—that one can support efforts that
improve welfare and increase awareness while working for liberation—marks
one position within the animal liberation movement, and is characterized
by achievements such as McDonald’s recent agreement to improve
the treatment of chickens and possibly other animals (see www.mccruelty.com).
As Peter Singer said of the McDonald’s agreement: it is “the
biggest step forward for farm animals in America that I can remember—certainly
since 1975, when Animal Liberation was published.” Another
common position, however, is summarized as “rights first, rights
only, rights or nothing at all.” (See Friedman and McKosky, Satya,
March 2001)
The Lessons of History: If Abolitionists had been Absolutists
While we all understand the desire to embrace and advocate pure-vegan
ideals, this shouldn’t stop us from studying the history of social
movements and reevaluating our tactics. Successful social movements,
such as abolitionism, women’s suffrage, civil rights, and gay
rights, have pushed for reforming the current system while working
towards ultimate
goals.
For example, take abolitionism and the subsequent civil rights movement
in the U.S. They were built through successive improvements in the
standing
of black Americans. Each improvement, each piecemeal reform, elevated
the status of blacks and brought greater confidence and experience
to
organizers, allowing them to fight for further entitlements. If the
movement had rejected all reforms, it’s unlikely that it ever could
have built enough momentum to succeed. Imagine if Frederick Douglass
had argued “Equal voting rights or no rights at all. Equal representation
in government and business, or no representation at all.” Imagine
if Lincoln had refused to issue the Emancipation Proclamation because
it didn’t guarantee an end to prejudice or segregation. Douglass,
Lincoln, and others were cognizant enough of political and social realities
to see that such positions would alienate the mass of the population,
condemning abolition to failure.
The same fate awaits any movement that does not seize reforms and strive
to educate when opportunities arise. Absolutist movements attract only
those already converted to the cause, and remain confined to a small
cadre of dedicated but isolated activists. By settling for “nothing
short of total liberation,” many groups have condemned themselves
to acrimonious anonymity and burnout. They cut themselves off from
consideration
by the public, and do not provide any incentive for change within the
animal industries.
More diverse organizations, on the other hand, have attracted broad
memberships of vegetarians and nonvegetarians. They achieve results
because they can reach out to those who may not share all of their opinions,
and are willing to work with businesses. These results, in turn, bring
in new activists who gain confidence and experience. We should recognize,
then, that individuals, businesses, and society progress towards a more
compassionate ethic gradually, through successive stages of increased
concern for animals.
“It must get worse before it gets better”
Some advocates argue that animal liberation is a unique social
justice goal and oppose welfare reforms because they believe people
will choose
not to go vegan if they learn that animals are being treated “better.”
An example of this logic is the fear that if the public hears that McDonald’s
will be getting their eggs from producers that keep their laying hens
in bigger cages and no longer force molt them, fewer people will alter
their purchasing patterns than had the agreement not been reached and
publicized.
Although this argument may seem to have a certain logic, the evidence
indicates that reforms draw the attention of nonvegetarians to the issue,
persuading many to reconsider their ethics and actions. Animal groups
then use their victories to gain visibility and push for further reforms.
In this way, welfare measures tend to be a slippery slope toward abolition,
not away from it.
European countries are a counterexample to the “it must get worse
before it gets better” argument. Most EU member nations have legislation
ensuring that animals are treated far better there than they are here;
and vegetarianism—particularly in the UK—is more widespread.
There are more vegetarian restaurants, and nonvegetarian restaurants
have more vegetarian options. The advances in animal welfare have given
both the UK welfare and abolition movements confidence and momentum.
And the attention paid to animal welfare in business practices and legislation
has increased the public’s interest in how their food is produced.
The same could become true in the U.S. Reforming a company like McDonald’s
can initiate a domino effect throughout the industry. Competitors now
have a greater incentive to match and exceed McDonald’s reforms,
thereby forcing industry-wide improvements in the living and dying conditions
for all animals. No company wants to be singled out as the “cruel
one” by a widespread and well-supported campaign.
More importantly, when the industries that rely on animal exploitation
raise the issue of humane treatment, it receives far more serious consideration
from the public than animal advocates and partisans could ever hope
to achieve alone. Once the companies themselves grant that animals have
interests, it becomes harder to justify using them for food, regardless
of specific conditions.
We have sympathy for those who believe McDonald’s is the “enemy,”
and claim we have to “destroy” them. But McDonald’s is
simply the embodiment of consumer demand. Vilifying a faceless corporate
entity as the antagonist distracts from what should be the core concern—the
suffering of animals—and from the root cause of this suffering—the
choices of consumers.
Obviously McDonald’s becoming vegan is not going to happen tomorrow.
In the meantime, we can help lessen animals’ suffering by supporting
reforms and consumer education while simultaneously advancing abolition
by promoting veganism. If we target non-vegan companies demanding that
they go vegan no matter what, they have no incentive to change their
farming practices or add more vegan alternatives to their menus. This
leads to more suffering, and more difficulty in people going veg.
Purity or Progress
Why else would we not support welfare reforms? Perhaps so as not
to “compromise our principles.” But this isn’t the case
unless our guiding principle is “Never, under any circumstances,
work with non-vegan people or businesses.” Why would someone hold
that principle above all else, especially when it is at odds with another
that seems more fundamental and defensible: “Work to reduce animal
suffering?”
Of course, this is not to say that everyone should pursue welfarist
measures. We believe that the way to lessen the most suffering in the
most expedient and efficacious manner is to promote vegetarianism and
veganism. Spending one’s time and resources attacking others’
efforts as not being “enough” (as a recent editorial expresses:
“PETA’s collusion with McDonald’s is further proof that
PETA has become nothing but an organizational pimp for major corporate
exploiters.”—FoA’s ActionLine, Winter 2000-2001) cannot
be expected to accomplish anything positive, for the animals at least.
Conclusions
If you were suffering in prison, would you want an absolutist on
your side? Would you ask that no one on the outside spend precious time
trying to stop your torture because it has to be “freedom or nothing
at all?” Would you believe that the worse your treatment and the
greater your suffering, the closer you would be to freedom? Or would
you prefer that someone bring to light your circumstances and enact
reforms that could significantly reduce your suffering, while also working
toward your liberation?
While our ultimate goal is to end animal exploitation, we must support
the reduction of suffering as much as possible along the way. We should
encourage any action that will help animals, even if all it does is
make their lives a bit less miserable or their deaths a bit less cruel.
We don’t stop there, of course, but we can’t pass up the chance
to make improvements for animals simply because it’s not enough.
Matt Ball is the Executive Director of Vegan Outreach,
a non-profit organization dedicated to furthering education and understanding.
They publish the widely distributed booklet, Why Vegan? This article
will appear in the June issue of Vegan Outreach’s newsletter with
additional Sidebars. To find out how to order a copy and to learn more,
visit www.veganoutreach.org
or call (412) 968-0268.
