The Death of Animal Rights (new blog post)
Here's the latest post from HRC's blog, Humane Thinking. To join the
conversation, please visit us online and post your comments (registered
users only): http://www.humanespot.org/humanethinking
-----
With nearly 40 years of history, the modern animal rights movement has
grown increasingly visible and has started to build a solid resource base.
But are animals any better off? Society’s use and abuse of animals
continues almost unabated, from the factory farm to the research lab to
the puppy mill. With four decades of work and arguably little to show for
it, we need to think hard about developing new models of advocacy to stay
relevant and achieve tangible results for animals.
As a social scientist, I'm often in the position of providing fellow animal
advocates with what I call a "reality check." An objective description of
public opinion can seem harsh, because public opinion itself can be harsh.
The same is true of the current state of animal use and abuse, both
institutional (e.g., factory farming) and episodic (e.g., an individual
cruel act). But I think we can all agree that to get where you want to
go, you must first know where you're starting from. Unfortunately, in
the case of animal advocacy – the impulsive teenager of social justice
movements – where we're at is not far from where we began.
Consider these reality checks:
Companion Animals: Despite significant declines in U.S. shelter euthanasia
from 1970 to the mid 1990s, progress over the past decade appears to
have slowed. In 2005, on average more than eight shelter animals were
euthanized every minute.
Farmed Animals: In 1970, an estimated 3.2 billion animals were raised
for food in the U.S. In 2007 that number was 9.5 billion. Additionally, a
much larger proportion of farmed animals today are raised in closely
confined environments.
Research Animals: Since the law was created in 1966, the Animal Welfare
Act has excluded rats, mice, and birds, thus leaving out about 95% of the
animals currently used in research. Not even basic legal protections are
mandated for these animals.
Furbearing Animals: Fur is back in fashion thanks to the admittedly
brilliant work of the industry to convince consumers that fur trim is less
audacious and more ethical. A majority of U.S. adults still believes that
buying clothes made of animal fur is "morally acceptable."
Vegetarianism: Actual vegetarians and vegans in the U.S. are a roughly
2-3% minority among adults, and this percentage has remained
essentially unchanged for 20 or more years despite an active
vegetarian advocacy community.
So isn't it time for animal advocates to think beyond the same old tactics
and the tired messages that we've been using for the past 30 years?
Isn't it time to be more thoughtful in our approach and more demanding
of ourselves to achieve tangible results? Of course, there is some
excellent work happening right now that's producing solid results for
animals. But much of what I see in the animal protection movement
involves rehashing old campaigns and relying on the same core
messages of opposing cruelty and appealing to compassion. Sadly,
it isn't working, and animal advocates must break out of their existing
paradigms if they intend to achieve significant results.
A Lesson from Environmentalists
Recently a couple of prominent activists came to a similar conclusion
about the current state of environmental advocacy. Michael Shellenberger
and Ted Nordhaus, authors of “The Death of Environmentalism,” argue
that the environmental movement is rapidly becoming obsolete because
it focuses on narrow policies that are easily ignored or overturned
depending on the politics of the current administration in Washington,
DC. Shellenberger and Nordhaus are also dismayed by the apparent lack
of concern that environmentalists have for their slow progress.
The environmental community’s narrow definition of its self-interest
leads to a kind of policy literalism that undermines its power... it is hard
not to conclude that the environmental movement’s approach to problems
and policies hasn’t worked particularly well. And yet there is nothing
about the behavior of environmental groups that indicates that we as
a community are ready to think differently about our work.
Shellenberger and Nordhaus make an interesting point about the self-
defeatism inherent in limiting concern for the environment to a “special
interest.” Animal advocacy, on the other hand, has only a fraction of the
public attention and policy interest that environmentalism has. It would
be a pleasant surprise just to see animal protection on the same list as
other “special interests!” But lessons from “The Death of Environmentalism”
also apply to animal advocacy, including a need to closely examine the
entrenched attitudes and approaches that we use to help animals.
One of the areas that I think should be examined is how we as animal
advocates position our goals. Very few people support the idea of a
“vegan world,” but nearly everyone agrees with a goal of eventually
eliminating animal cruelty and suffering. Resolving that disconnect
goes beyond explaining to people that “animal rights” does not mean
we’re planning to issue drivers’ licenses to family pets. Frankly, animal
advocates also need to soften their tone and limit their expectations.
Except in very rare situations, people don’t make abrupt changes (and
one could argue that most of the few who do make abrupt changes are
already advocates), and effective persuasion requires being able to offer
incremental steps.
The Not-So-Great Divide – Reform vs. Abolition
Given the reality of their situation, animals would probably scoff at the
increasingly heated debate among some advocates regarding “welfare
reforms” vs. “animal liberation.” A discussion of where to focus one’s
limited resources is rarely a bad idea, but to suggest that any single
approach to animal advocacy is right – or that others are wrong – is
just naïve. The argument is moot, not least because advocating for
animals will always be a diverse effort. But making gains for animals
today is perfectly valid, even if those gains are minimal. And ensuring
that we stay focused on the ultimate goal of abolishing animal cruelty
(at least to the extent possible) is also a valid role for some advocates
to play.
However, parsing advocates into “welfarist” and “abolitionist” camps is
not just divisive; it’s also a waste of everyone’s limited time and, more
importantly, a disservice to animals. The only advocates who have it
“wrong” are the ones who believe that their approach is the only one
that’s “right.” On the other hand, those who respect the broad range
of tactics that comprises the animal protection movement also
recognize that small changes can lead to big long-term results. If I
were to guess, I’d say that animals appreciate both the incremental
changes as well as the long-term focus on liberation. So a good first
step for advocates would be to end the debates and start focusing on
effective advocacy.
Risking Obsolescence
But what is effective? There have certainly been some successful
campaigns for animals over the past few decades -- how did those
successes happen? Why are other approaches not getting enough
traction to change hearts and minds or pass more animal-friendly
policies? Unfortunately, I don’t have answers to these questions, just
some personal observations based on the research that HRC has
conducted. First and foremost, animal protection is just not relevant
for many people, except perhaps when it comes to the care and
wellbeing of their companion animals. But animal abuse is something
that usually happens behind closed doors; so when people see it, they
think it’s an exception.
Partly as a result of this phenomenon, some animal advocates have
fallen for the belief that they just have to scream louder to be heard.
They denounce animal cruelty with vehement rhetoric and graphic
images plastered on billboards and then they wonder why people
aren’t changing en masse in response to the truth. But sometimes
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.
Contrast this with the other end of the spectrum, which might be
considered the local nonprofit shelter community, which in most
areas has very high favorability among the public. This is testament
to the hard work of companion animal advocates, but it also reflects
a polarization of public perception regarding animal people: the
benevolent shelter volunteer vs. the angry vegan protester, if you
will. As a result, there is a rather large void in public opinion where
moderate, but resolute animal advocates could claim space and
provide more access to the movement’s ideas. People really do love
animals, this we know to be true, but advocates need to give these
people a community and a set of ideas with which they can more
easily identify.
How to Avoid Premature Demise
Borrowing again from Shellenberger and Nordhaus:
If environmentalists hope to become more than a special interest we
must start framing our proposals around core American values. We must
start seeing our own values as central to what motivates and guides our
politics.
During the past 40 years, animal advocates have mostly emphasized
our reasons when trying to persuade people, governments, and
corporations to eliminate (or at least mitigate) animal cruelty.
Appeals to personal compassion and “doing the right thing” can
certainly work for some people and institutions, but don’t think
that compassion is a panacea. It is just one of the many core values
held by people in the U.S., as well as other countries throughout the
world. Per the quote above, animal advocates (like environmentalists)
would be well-served to meet people halfway, by framing our messages
and policy goals around these shared values.
For a fascinating treatise on core values in the U.S. as they relate to
perceptions of ecology, see “Road Map for an Ecological Majority”
(PDF file, 2006), by American Environics (a company started by
Shellenberger and Nordhaus).
http://www.americanenvironics.com/PDF/Road_Map_for_Ecological_Majority_AE.pdf
In that report, the following are identified as “core values” of the ecological
base, a constituency that I believe would overlap significantly with the
animal protection base.
• Ecological Concern
• Personal Control
• Civic Engagement
• Religion à la Carte
• Introspection & Empathy
• Flexible Families
• Skepticism Towards Advertising
• Culture Sampling
• Global Consciousness
• Brand Apathy
• Ethical Consumerism
• Rejection of Authority
• More Power for Media
• Importance of Spontaneity
• Personal Creativity
• Everyday Ethics
• Discriminating Consumerism
• Meaningful Moments
• Flexible Gender Identity
• Deconsumption
• Rejection of Order
• Strategic Consumption
• Racial Fusion
• Largesse Oblige
• Social Responsibility
Each of these values has a specific meaning according to the American
Environics taxonomy, but one thing that is immediately evident from
the list above is that modern value systems are complex. People hold
very diverse worldviews and they arrive at those beliefs in various ways,
which makes understanding human nature a difficult task. But understand
it we must, if we intend to effect real change for non-human animals.
Moreover, advocates should realize that it’s neither wise nor tenable to
try to change human nature. Rather, our goal should be to create
messages and policies that appeal to the values most deeply held
by our target audiences.
“Target audience” is a phrase that comes up frequently in these posts.
Depending on what animal issues you work on, your target audience
might be very narrow, but more likely it’s fairly broad (e.g., pet
owners, meat consumers, etc.). Whichever the case, advocates must
work hard to understand their audience and tailor their appeals based
on the audience's current values and behavior. If the audience is very
large, segment it into smaller groups based on shared values, current
behavior, and/or the means by which you plan to reach them. Remember:
it’s not a “one size fits all” kind of world and your messages don’t have
the same appeal everyone.
One final thought: The animal advocacy community will always have
its pragmatists, purists, and pundits (myself included, most likely),
and in general the diversity is probably a good thing. But let’s try to
limit the internal dialogue to what’s most effective and, more
importantly, stay focused on our target audiences. I'm sure we can
all agree that our foremost obligation is to animals, which means our
energy is better spent understanding and persuading the population
at large (our "target audience") rather than debating each other.
Thanks for reading and listening to my opinion.
Regards,
Che
http://www.humanespot.org/humanethinking
Posted on SHARE Yahoo group - Apr. 5, 2008