Forwarded message - for info, please visit
http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/laveck.html
Note: This is a very long article, but it is another one of those
very important pieces that deserves to be read by everyone who cares
about animals or any other social justice cause. It ends with a quote
from Ghandi -
A principle is a principle, and in no case can it be watered down
because of our incapacity to live it in practice. We have to strive
to achieve it, and the striving should be conscious, deliberate and
hard. - Gandhi
- Maureen

Animal Rights: Divide and Conquer
Posted by: Joe Miele jmmiele@optonline.net

http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/laveck.html
Invasion of the Movement Snatchers:
A Social Justice Cause Falls Prey to the Doctrine of "Necessary Evil"
By James LaVeck

PHOTO of a ram [from online article]: Devlin, at Woodstock Farm
Animal Sanctuary. Photo by Wiebke Wiechell, courtesy of
www.flickr.com/photos/inkedyogachick

You never know when a PR agency is being effective; you'll just find
your views slowly shifting.-PR Executive

Few of us realize that some U.S. industries pay hundreds of millions
of dollars to public relations firms charged with the removal of any
and all obstacles to their acquisition of profit. High on the list of
those obstacles are grassroots social justice movements.

In a 2002 article on their Center for Media and Democracy website,
authors and social activists John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton
described the activities of MBD, one such PR firm involved in the
dismantlement of citizen movements concerned about problems ranging
from acid rain, dioxin, biotechnology and toxic wastes, to apartheid,
nuclear energy, endangered species and oil spills.

"Their favorite method," wrote Stauber and Rampton, "is a 'divide and
conquer' strategy heavily dependent on co-optation: First identify
the 'radicals' who are unwilling to compromise and who are demanding
fundamental changes to redress the problem at hand. Then, identify
the 'realists'-typically, organizations with significant budgets and
staffs working in the same relative area of public concern as the
radicals. Then, approach these realists, often through a friendly
third party, start a dialogue and eventually cut a deal, a 'win-win'
solution that marginalizes and excludes the radicals and their
demands.

"Next, go with the realists to the 'idealists' who have learned about
the problem through the work of the radicals. Convince the idealists
that a 'win-win' solution endorsed by the realists is best for the
community as a whole. Once this has been accomplished, the 'radicals'
can be shut out as extremists, the PR fix is in, and the deal can be
touted in the media to make the corporation and its 'moderate'
nonprofit partners look heroic for solving the problem. Result:
industry may have to make some small or temporary concessions, but
the fundamental concerns raised by the 'radicals' are swept aside."
[Emphasis added.]

What does this troubling scenario have to do with animal advocates
and our movement to end the exploitation of sentient beings? Well, it
turns out the first time Stauber and Rampton wrote about MBD, it was
in reference to a presentation given by Ronald Duchin-the "D" in MBD-
to none other than the Cattleman's Association (see page 66 of Toxic
Sludge is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations
Industry). The year was 1991, and Duchin, a graduate of the Army War
College and former special assistant to the Secretary of Defense, was
outlining the most effective strategy for "dealing with" the meat
industry's biggest irritant: us.

Duchin recommended the following three-step plan:

1) Isolate the radicals

2) "Cultivate" the idealists and "educate" them into
becoming "realists"

3) Co-opt the opportunists into agreeing with industry.

Duchin acknowledged in his speech that idealists were hard to work
with, and that because of their inherent altruism and the fact that
they gain nothing personally from holding their views, the public
tends to believe in them. He then offered the cattlemen a clever
strategy. He said that if idealists can somehow be convinced that
their opposition to a product or an industry inadvertently caused
harm to someone, they could not live with the contradiction and would
be forced to change their views, to adopt a more "realistic"
position.

Duchin next told the cattlemen about how to work with
movement "opportunists," people he described as engaging in activism
for "visibility, power, followers, and perhaps, employment... The key
to dealing with opportunists is to provide them with at least the
perception of a partial victory."

The widespread adoption of "cage-free" eggs? A few seats at the table
with the group developing standards for producing "Animal
Compassionate" lamb? Uncrated "pink" veal? Today, these and similar
developments are being widely characterized as victories by
organizations with reputations for staunchly opposing animal
exploitation.

The Bilk of Human Kindness

It's not pleasant to think about the possibility that our movement
could be in the process of being co-opted and neutralized according
to a blueprint laid out 15 years ago by a meat industry consulting
firm. But for the animal exploiting industries, there are billions of
dollars at stake, and it stands to reason that they are going to
commit serious resources to the protection of their interests, and
they are going to play to win. Consider how the relentless pressure
to bring stock performance ever higher, quarter after quarter, can
drive corporate executives into a hypercompetitive frenzy. As a
result, one regularly reads of industrial espionage, media smear
campaigns, attempts to corrupt political leaders, accounting scandals
and brutal takeover battles. Is there any reason to believe that
people caught up in such a system might be any less ruthless when
dealing with a citizens' movement that seeks to put them out of
business?

Stauber and Rampton, after years of investigating the activities of
the PR industry, point out the tendency of activists to deny the
possibility that we could be duped, "activists like to believe that
we are too committed to our causes, too worldly and aware to be sweet-
talked into unwitting submission by sitting down and partnering with
the enemy." But according to PR industry guru Denise Deegan, notes
Stauber, "industry continues to regard this sort of 'dialogue' as its
most effective method for managing activists."

Stauber and Rampton's work is hardly based on armchair theorizing.
Rather, it is derived from exhaustive study of the history of real-
life grassroots movements that, like the animal movement, have
attempted to confront industry abuse. They studied, for example, how
the MBD PR firm grew out of a successful campaign to neutralize a
massive boycott of the Nestlé corporation. In the late 70s, Nestlé
was attempting to persuade millions of third world women to use
synthetic infant formula instead of breast-feeding their babies. "In
activist lore," note Stauber and Rampton, "this boycott is touted as
a major victory, but in the corporate world it is understood that
industry really won the day by pulling the rug out from the campaign.
By making selective concessions to the activists, Nestlé succeeded in
negotiating an end to the boycott. Later, activists were dismayed to
discover that its infant formula marketing practices are continuing
with only token changes. Third world children continue to die, but
today their plight receives little attention, and activists have
found that a boycott, once terminated, is not easily turned back on."

Translate this to the animal movement, and the call for a boycott is,
very simply, vegan advocacy. When we switch from asking people to
eliminate or reduce their consumption of animal products, to publicly
endorsing "humane" animal products, are we not, in effect, calling
off our own boycott? Think about it. "A boycott, once terminated, is
not easily turned back on."

Playing to Win-Win

So this is serious. Let's go through it again and reflect upon how
recent developments in the animal movement might map onto the PR
industry playbook as summarized by Stauber and Rampton.

First identify the 'radicals' who are unwilling to compromise and who
are demanding fundamental changes to redress the problem at hand.

Hypothetically, that could be anyone who believes animals have
rights, that exploiting them is wrong, and that the solution is
encouraging people to boycott all animal products, with a long-term
goal of abolishing the property status of animals. We're not talking
about radical tactics, but radical ideas. We're talking about
community educators, amateur investigators, protesters, attorneys,
bloggers, artists, nurses, animal rescuers, merchants, writers,
leafleteers, clergyfolk, dieticians, former farmers, humane
educators, college students, sanctuary workers, yoga instructors,
teenagers, musicians, doctors, and all kinds of everyday activists
who practice veganism as an expression of Gandhian nonviolence, as a
refusal to cooperate in any way with those profiting from the
oppression of others.

Then, identify the 'realists'-typically, organizations with
significant budgets and staffs working in the same relative area of
public concern as the radicals.

Hypothetically, that could be a number of large multi-million dollar
animal protection organizations with significant farmed animal
campaigns.

Then, approach these realists, often through a friendly third party,
start a dialogue, and eventually cut a deal, a 'win-win' solution
that marginalizes and excludes the radicals and their demands.

Hypothetically, this could be an offer made by someone like John
Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, one of the nation's leading retailers of
both meat and organic produce, to partner with animal advocates and
meat industry "visionaries" to develop new standards for the "humane"
exploitation of animals. However, in order to participate,
the "realists" must de facto contradict their own position that
sentient nonhuman animals should not be used for human purposes, for
to negotiate the details of their exploitation with those who will do
the killing and make the profits dramatically undermines the
integrity of this fundamental principle.

Now, through the combined efforts of industry and the participating
animal organizations, the "reasonable" person's response to being
made aware of the plight of farmed animals becomes not veganism, not
reduction of meat, dairy and egg consumption, but rather, the
purchase of "humane" animal products.

Simultaneously, the focus of public dialogue irrevocably shifts from
the questionable morality of using and killing animals, to an
elaborate, endless wrangle over how the deed will be done-conditions,
treatment, standards and regulation.

In this new framework, public calls by animal advocates for the
boycott of all animal products, for nonparticipation in exploitation,
have no place. Such talk is now an embarrassment for the
participating animal groups, and a joke for the meat industry people.
Such talk is now relegated to the realm of "radicalism."

Next, go with the realists to the 'idealists' who have learned about
the problem through the work of the radicals. Convince the idealists
that a 'win-win' solution endorsed by the realists is best for the
community as a whole.

Hypothetically, these could be the small, idealistic organizations
that are convinced to join the larger organizations in endorsing
the "'humane' standards mini-revolution." Together, they persuade
frontline educators and citizen activists that solely advocating for
veganism is no longer the right approach. Activists must now
simultaneously support "humane" meat and "cage-free" eggs as a
purported transitional step for people who won't give up consuming
animal products today. To do otherwise, it is argued, is tantamount
to abandoning billions of animals now trapped in the existing meat
industry system.

Confronted with this seeming "contradiction," large numbers of
movement idealists shift their views and begin adopting a
more "realistic" position, a textbook application of Duchin's turn-
idealists-into-realists formula. This new "realism" includes public
advocacy of non-vegan behavior-consumption of "humane" animal
products-alongside public advocacy of vegan behavior-boycotting of
all animal products. Eerily, these newly transformed idealists even
begin to refer to themselves as "realists," and to those who hold on
to their own former values for non-participation as "purists"
and "absolutists," sometimes even "selfish" or "self-righteous" in
their "moral rigidity."

Meat-ing People Where They Are

It is striking, and deeply troubling, how this new way of thinking of
ourselves and our advocacy conform so perfectly to Mr. Duchin's
roadmap for our future, and how it so precisely echoes the "dilemma"
of Whole Foods' John Mackey, who talks of how he would lose his
position as CEO, the very basis of his ability to make a difference,
were he to impose his personal values and deny his customers the
opportunity to purchase a wide variety of animal products. Therefore,
given his concern for animals, Mackey is morally obligated to do what
he needs to do in order to maintain his position at the top, and to
use the power he has to create a new line of "animal compassionate"
meat products, while working with participating animal groups to
convince the public to buy them-thus, in Mackey's own
words, "pioneering an entirely new way for people to relate to farm
animals, with the animals' welfare becoming the most important goal."

Likewise, some leaders of participating animal groups might reason
that, were they to "impose" veganism and the abolition of animal
exploitation on the public by refusing to offer them an
approved "humane" animal product alternative, they too would lose the
money and members that they believe are the basis of their ability to
make a difference. Rather, in order to have clout and credibility
with the widest range of funders, legislators, journalists and
other "mainstream" people, they need to "meet people where they are,"
and offer "options." They seem to believe that they are, in fact,
morally obligated to work with industry to develop and
market "humane" animal products that they claim will help the public
and the meat industry transition away from the most egregious forms
of animal torture.

In order to see where this new "meet-people-where-they-are" approach
is leading our movement, we need go no further than the latest
labeling scheme, this one launched in Australia by an international
animal organization. It is called "Humane Choice," and the press
release enthusiastically declares that the new label "will guarantee
the consumer that the animal has been treated with respect and care,
from birth through to death... The Humane Choice label will denote
the animal has had the best life and death offered to any farm
animal... They basically live their lives as they would have done on
Old MacDonald's farm..."

Humane Choice? Old MacDonald's farm? See how the roles are reversing?
Animal advocacy is no longer about ethics and social justice-it is
now about consumer choice. The selling of meat is no longer about
commodification, exploitation and profits-it is now about animal
welfare. Veganism is no longer a moral imperative-it is now a
charmingly eccentric lifestyle choice.

Bringing us to Stauber and Rampton's finale: Once this has been
accomplished, the 'radicals' can be shut out as extremists, the PR
fix is in, and the deal can be touted in the media to make the
corporation and its 'moderate' nonprofit partners look heroic for
solving the problem. Result: industry may have to make some small or
temporary concessions, but the fundamental concerns raised by
the 'radicals' are swept aside.

The Animal Welfare Industrial Complex

Whether our movement came to its present state in whole or in part
through PR industry machinations, or if it is simply self-destructing
of its own accord, we should be shocked and deeply concerned that the
structure of today's animal movement so closely resembles the vision
of moral compromise, division and debilitation put forth by a meat
industry PR consultant so many years ago. However it was
accomplished, it is undeniable that the firewall of linguistic
precision, critical thought and philosophical integrity needed to
protect our movement from such degradation has been all but torn down.

It's troubling to think about how things could have gone this far so
fast, but it stands to reason that Mr. Duchin and his ilk haven't
been twiddling their thumbs for the past 15 years. As animal
organizations and the meat industry co-mingle their affairs in an
increasingly bewildering tangle, their language, values, interests
and goals are becoming indistinguishable, creating a kind of "animal
welfare industrial complex" in which the "players"-dominant figures
of the industry and the corporate animal movement-will regularly meet
in private to negotiate the price of public concern for animal
suffering.

To the industry will go animal organization endorsements of an ever
more bizarre array of "humane" products and "compassionate"
practices. To the animal groups will go a pocketful of "partial
victories" as well as a few gratuities like conference sponsorships
and high profile publicity opportunities. By making the process so
orderly and rational, by whittling it down to a few key players with
an unspoken understanding of the arrangement, all parties involved
will receive a regular supply of what they need to keep growing at a
rapid clip. More money. More customers/members. More political
connections. More ability to dictate the terms of public discourse.

The workings of this hypothetical animal welfare industrial complex
fit comfortably into the Orwellian culture of our post-9/11 society,
where civil rights and the rule of law are being systematically
undermined in the name of protecting our "freedom." Central to it all
is our acceptance of the doctrine of "necessary evil," which leads us
to go against our core values and rationalize our complicity in acts
of violence and injustice committed against others-acts that are
often described as "sad" and "regrettable," but, let's be realistic,
unavoidable and absolutely necessary if we are to accomplish our
righteous mission. Under the doctrine of necessary evil, there is
nothing fundamentally wrong with indefinitely incarcerating thousands
of people suspected, but not charged, tried or convicted of any
crime, in a worldwide network of secret prisons, and even torturing
them-as long as all of it is done for noble reasons, and according to
the proper "standards."

Consider the parallelism of these two passages, the first from the
New York Times, and the second from the website of a new animal
industry marketing campaign in England:

Although the C.I.A. has faced criticism over the use of harsh
techniques, one senior intelligence official said detainees had not
been mistreated. They were given dental and vision care as well as
the Koran, prayer rugs and clocks to schedule prayers, the official
said. They were also given reading material, DVD's and access to
exercise equipment.

This is not veal from dimly lit crowded pens. These animals enjoy a
very full life, with plenty of space and light, inside suitable
buildings over winter and outside at pasture for the rest of the
year; a varied diet; and the care of a foster cow when available.

Yes, poor orphaned calves destined for the butcher's knife are now
going to be lovingly nurtured by a "foster mom" before their lives
are prematurely snuffed out. And lest anyone feel bad about the
brevity of the baby cows' existence, the industry helpfully points
out that "with a life span of six months, they live twice as long as
even the slowest growing chicken; they have the same life span as a
good organic pig, and longer than many organic lambs."

So those who consume the flesh of these coddled calves are actually
humanitarians solving an "animal welfare problem." By eating the
unwanted male offspring of dairy cows, we will spare these unlucky
newborns from the morally repugnant alternative, a shorter and more
brutal life in a crate. One cannot help but recall the quote
attributed to an army lieutenant during the Vietnam War who
declared, "We had to destroy the village, in order to save it."

According to a newspaper report, nine days after the launch of
this "Good Veal" campaign, veal sales at one English supermarket
chain rose 45 percent. Notably, the campaign's website features the
endorsement and logo of a large, well-respected European animal
advocacy organization whose name begins with the word "compassion."

Hence, a decades-long boycott is all but neutralized. Think of how
many people worked, and for how long, to educate the public about why
the eating of veal should be taboo. Just how much specially
labeled "Good Veal" does one have to eat before the distinction
dissolves, and it simply becomes good to eat veal?

Once again, our movement's fundamental concerns.artfully swept aside.

The Art of Relentless Compassion

In this new era, to be a vegan advocate, to successfully encourage
others to boycott participation in the exploitation of animals, one
must do so much more than expose people to the injustice of animal
exploitation, help them overcome the force of their own personal
habits, resist family and societal pressure, and see through the
outrageous deceptions of the meat industry. Now, one must also debunk
the patent fallacy of "humane" happy meat products enthusiastically
endorsed, promoted and in some cases even developed by a number of
organizations that are, essentially, the public face of animal
advocacy.

If abolition of exploitation is our ultimate goal, as is so often
claimed, and if veganism is the single most powerful personal
expression of opposition to animal exploitation, why on earth would
any animal organization participate in making the job of vegan
activists and educators so much harder?

Already, sanctuary workers, educators and frontline vegan activists
are reporting that members of the public, when confronted with the
reality of farmed animal exploitation, increasingly indicate that
they will express their concern for farmed animals, not by boycotting
or reducing their consumption of animal products, but by purchasing
animal products marketed as "humane." Whole Foods, not surprisingly,
is often mentioned by name.

" Humane" animal products appear to be a nearly perfect antidote to
the inner conflict brought about by awareness of one's own complicity
in the exploitation of animals. But sadly, by trading a sacred truth
for a clever lie, "humane" labels make a mockery of an authentic
moment of conscience.

If we step outside the mindset of the animal welfare industrial
complex, and choose instead to model our approach on successful
social justice movements of the past, it becomes clear that our job
is to relentlessly investigate and expose the industry's
exploitation; to rescue animals and offer sanctuary; to educate the
public about who animals are and why it is wrong to use and kill
them; and to create and promote ideas, products, social values,
commercial practices, traditions, artworks, language, philosophy, and
laws that are wholly nonviolent, that do not in any way participate
in or reinforce the legitimacy of the exploitation of any being.

Such a time-tested way of working for peaceful change is both
practical and powerful, and well suits the dignity of the cause we
serve. It speaks to the best in human nature, and produces ever-
growing waves of change. Each person who joins in signals a reprieve
for a large number of animals, adds to the common pool of creativity
and wisdom, and becomes another caretaker of a vision uncontaminated
by pessimism or self-interest. This naturally grows our movement
without diluting the strength or clarity of our message, and wins the
respect of those vast numbers of people who are willing to listen and
learn from us, but are not yet ready to join our cause. To them-the
people working through doubt or lifestyle transition-we respectfully
offer opportunities to learn more while experiencing the joy of our
nonviolent culture, as well as constant encouragement to reduce their
consumption of the products of suffering. Over time, by transforming
more and more individual lives, we can, and will, transform an entire
society.

Walking this path, we can be confident that each step we take, large
or small, is a step in the right direction, a step toward liberating
countless beings from a life of exploitation and suffering. And rest
assured, under the mounting pressure of public outrage at the cruelty
and injustices our work relentlessly exposes, the meat industry will
have no choice but to respond by "improving" their practices. If
history is any guide, in many cases their claims of making things
better for the animals will be little more than self-serving
fabrications. But sometimes the changes they make will actually
decrease the suffering animals endure before slaughter, and of
course, we can all agree that's a good thing.

But we don't need to be a part of dreaming up the details of the
industry's new and improved systems of exploitation, and we certainly
don't need to put our good names and our movement's credibility
behind the questionable products that result. Let the industry pay
people like self-described animal advocate and slaughterhouse
designer Temple Grandin to do that. And let such professional
apologists "take the credit" for creating more efficient and more
profitable methods of "killing with kindness."

Let us not forget, there is a reason why human rights groups do not
develop or endorse "humane" methods of torturing and executing
political prisoners, and why children's rights advocates do not
collaborate with the international pornography industry to develop
standards and special labeling for films that make "compassionate"
use of runaway teens. To do such things is to introduce moral
ambiguity into situations where the boundaries between right and
wrong must never be allowed to blur. To be the agent of such blurring
is to become complicit oneself in the violence and abuse.

Let us be clear. When we endorse the consumption of any kind of
animal product, we're not only encouraging an act we ourselves know
to be immoral-not only blurring the line between right and wrong-
we're also willfully ignoring animal agriculture's massive
contribution to global warming, world hunger, chronic disease, worker
abuse, desertification and third world poverty. Let us not be too
quick to assume that others are not ready to absorb the full force of
truths we ourselves hold as self-evident. The world has seen quite
enough cynicism by now, and is ready for something new. Let us freely
share with everyone the best truth we have, and let us do so with the
courage, altruism and integrity of the unapologetic idealists who
have come before us-those whose historic words and deeds have
redefined the limits of human potential.

A principle is a principle, and in no case can it be watered down
because of our incapacity to live it in practice. We have to strive
to achieve it, and the striving should be conscious, deliberate and
hard. - Gandhi

James LaVeck is cofounder of the nonprofit arts and educational
organization Tribe of Heart and producer of award-winning
documentaries The Witness and Peaceable Kingdom. A substantial
revision of Peaceable Kingdom, which will include an examination of
the ethics of "humane" meat, is currently in post-production. To
learn more, visit www.tribeofheart.org.

Posted on SHARE Yahoo group 11/22/06