Animal Writings

I've often heard this: We could get people to go vegan more quickly if we could just improve the message.

I agree with the concept, but the devil's in the details.

There are limits to the effectiveness of even the most brilliantly articulated message. I know people—and you probably do, too—who have heard the message countless times, know about the horrors in animal agriculture, are familiar with vegan foods, and feel guilty about eating meat and other animal products. These folks have been heavily advocated to over years, and have access to a wealth of resources and information. Yet they are still miles from veganism.

Perhaps no social justice movement has ever tried to eradicate a behavior that is so thoroughly steeped in almost every member of society. Nearly everyone eats animal products from the time they quit weaning until the day they die. Asking people to stop eating meat, dairy, and eggs sounds to them like they're being asked to quit breathing. They are socially, emotionally, and perhaps partly physically addicted to eating animal products, and they are overwhelmed with subtle and blatant enticements to consume them. Never before has something so destructive and cruel been so heavily promoted.

In addition, this may be the first liberation movement in which none of the victims or members of the victimized groups are fluent in the spoken language of their oppressors, or of the people who can help the victims. Yes, of course the animals convey their suffering with a ferocity, and their despair is heartbreakingly obvious. But they cannot stage a protest in front of the Capitol; they cannot stand on street corners and demand justice; they cannot arrange a press conference to protest their mistreatment and exploitation. They are more out of sight and out of mind than any victim group in history.

That's not to say we shouldn't wrack our brains and consider every conceivable idea and summon our creativity to make the "Go vegan" message as compelling as possible. This fundamental and fairly straightforward message has some formidable advantages going for it:

• It draws on basic morals that virtually everyone shares and holds dear.


• Each vegan is living proof that it can be done, and that going vegan can reap great emotional and in some cases spiritual rewards.


• Technology has made transition to veganism fairly easy for most people, psychological barriers notwithstanding, and it will only get easier as the number of people advancing toward veg*anism increases.


• Going vegan probably saves people money in most cases, though this merely icing on the cake.

Now, is "Go vegan" in all its variations always a more productive message than, say, "Reduce your consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs, and in the meantime learn how these products are produced and buy the least cruel forms of them as possible?" The former gets to the bottom line (well the real bottom line might be a society filled with compassion in which veganism is only a part, albeit a major part, but that's another post), but what if it turns off people because they think "Vegan—that's too hard" and those same people find the "reduce" message more approachable? I know we don't like to think about this but we can't base our strategy on a wish that people proceed in a more more rational manner than they actually do. It is conceivable that what may be championed as refusal to compromise in terms of message results in a compromise in terms of effectiveness. Maybe the "reduce and refine" technique gets a greater number of people off to a start, and primes them for a more comprehensive, fundamental "Why not drop all the animal products" follow-through down the road. There's some psychology at play. It's not just a question of laying out the facts, even the morals, and watching people respond. Often individuals will make a series of small changes in their lives but shy away from something that seems radical and threatening.

Which brings us to incrementalism.

Pretty much all vegan activists agree that the vast majority of individuals who will advance toward veganism will do so in stages. Some activists maintain that the only legitimate type of progress—the only sort of progression that works—is dropping non-vegan foods one at a time or one meal at a time. For sure, dropping an animal product from the menu is significant; it gets one used to not having animal products and probably stimulates the exploration of alternatives. But perhaps a more natural course of action is to gradually refuse to participate in certain cruelties, starting with the most heinous ones. A lifetime meat-eater may realize almost instantly that it's dreadfully wrong to force hens into an area smaller than a sheet of notebook paper or to confine several-hundred pound pigs into a two-foot wide crate. The pain and suffering in those situations is so severe one can practically feel it in their bodies sympathetically, just from seeing a picture. So the meat-eater makes some amendments to his or her diet, starting with the ones that from his or her perspective yield the most bang for the buck—buying free-range/cage free animal products, which is a fairly easy move but takes some horrific tortures of the table.

As the "free-rangers" — as I call omnivores in this stage — learn about more cruelties and expand their notion of "It's wrong to make others suffer for my 'pleasure'" to "It's wrong to make violate others' interests for my benefit," and learn more about vegan alternatives in their diet, and become more comfortable with modifying their diets for ethical reasons, they increase the restrictions on what they will buy, or, looked at another way, they find more and more practices objectionable.

But in reality it's more complicated than this. As I mentioned in a previous post, I think the ethical impetus for reducing consumption of animal products and for abstaining from the cruelest forms of animal products (at least from the perspective of the evolving consumer) is basically the same: An emerging feeling that we should not interfere with animals' interests if it can be avoided. (Perhaps this is accompanied by greater knowledge and appreciation of those interests, and thus of the animals who have them.) So people, driven by newfound guilt but also still addicted and locked into a meat/dairy/egg-centric diet try veggie sausages but put it on their cheese-laden pizza and make a deal with their consciences that hey, they used to order extra cheese and now they're not so it's cool. They buy cage-free eggs and tell themselves that the hens from this company really do have decent lives—surely the company wouldn't be allowed to show hens in wide-open pastures if that weren't the case. They don't quite believe it, but they tell themselves anyway as a superficial palliative. They stumble and play games with themselves and make halfway measures and weird rationalizations. They give into pressure and join their co-workers in meat fajitas ("just this once and at least it's from a place that has free-range meat") or accept the burger that the host puts on their plate ("I don't want to hurt his feelings—but I'll eat lots of veggies so I'll be too full for another burger"), and so on.

So how do we—and organizations specifically—influence these people, help them stay on track and prevent them from stalemating or lapsing? (Sometimes people make great strides toward veganism at first, then seem to slack off and get re-absorbed into the meat-infatuated society in which they live. This may occur more frequently with college students, who dive into veganism as a statement against society but lose their support structure and yield to workplace pressures after they graduate.)

I think the "go vegan" message as well as the "reduce and refine" message have gotten better in recent years, and can and will continue to improve. Various web sites have tips on effective street advocacy. COK commercials are well-produced and pack a remarkable amount of punch in a 30-second spot. Videos get better and more diverse. Cookbooks and vegan food web sites—OMG. Experience at creating vegan delicacies and hitherto un-veganizable dishes has really advanced, giving a shot in the arm to culinary activism. HSUS, not generally considered a cutting edge animal rights organization, and which barely promoted or practiced vegetarianism until a few years ago, now has slick ads in mainstream environmental magazines recommending that people reduce their meat, dairy, and egg intake. The United Nations reports that diet has a bigger global warming impact than transportation. It's getting easier to find "vegan" on product packaging in mainstream grocery stores. Most coffee shops offer soy versions of all their milk drinks. Many regions have guides to veg-friendly restaurants. The availability, variety, and sophistication of advocacy resources of all sorts is growing by leaps and bounds.

Something's working. You can see it and feel it. "Vegan" is much more understood and common than it was even three years ago. Among young people especially, veg*anism is no longer fringe, and is moving slowly but surely toward mainstream. Sales and types of plant-based meat and dairy substitutes continue to climb. I have to believe that in the vast majority of cases, when someone buys veggie bacon—which tastes, looks, and feels like bacon—they're buying it instead of animal bacon; the amount of meat that would have been eaten decreases. Same for veggie lunch meats, veggie burgers, veggie chicken patties, veggie barbecue, and so forth. They're all designed and marketed to be replacements for their respective animal-based counterparts. It's mostly the same deal with soy milk, soy creamer, non-dairy cream, eggless mayonnaise, and almost any other "faux" product.

Lots of activists attribute the successes to their favorite types of advocacy and blame the shortfalls on their least favorite forms of advocacy. But perhaps it is the blend of techniques, in which each activist speaks from his or her own perspective and experiences, that works best, that resonates with the greatest number of people.

Note: I've had this post sitting around for 5 days, waiting to be completed. I haven't gotten to my conclusion, but rather than delay that even more, let me post what I've got, and continue this meandering train of thought in the next post. But, as a lead-in, to be continued...Given that in my own experience, free-rangers seem receptive to vegan outreach, and given that veganism in general, by almost any measure, seems to be more accepted and less of an alien concept to the general population these days, will people necessarily run away in droves if organizations step up the "vegan" part of their advocacy?

Also, FYI, the posts in this series are not intended to be the authoritative prescription for the animal movement, just my thoughts, based on my experiences, submitted for your consideration.

Labels: activism, advocacy, improving the message, incrementalism, vegan outreach