Elaine responded to a recent blog post at L.O.V.E. entitled “Holistic veganism,” arguing that she prioritizes “triage” in her vegan activism, which she conceives of as follows:
I choose to focus my energy on the areas where I think I’ll do the most good/prevent the most harm.
In a post titled “The absurdity of ‘triage’ and the need for social change,” Ida challenged Elaine.
By definition…triage takes place after the harm has already happened, and is therefore incapable of dealing with the cause of that harm.
Ida uses the example of the television show M.A.S.H. to make her point.
…no matter how many soldiers the doctors saved, the wounded just kept coming in. This is because the doctors doing triage were working within the system.
Elaine’s approach, it is argued, is a response to effects (i.e., the harm caused by oppression), and fails to address the causes of the oppression that results in harm. Surely this is descriptively true, but Ida is making a normative claim that is disputable by stretching the M.A.S.H. analogy.
The necessity of physicians in the Armed Forces is an effect of exigencies: in war, the wounded need medical attention. Physicians, then, are responding to a need within a system replete with needs. These other needs will be responded to by other individuals. In the war analogy one such need is a challenge to the systems that makes war itself a necessity. There are multiple fronts responding to a heterogeneity of needs. Doctors aid the critical, those in direct need of having their bodily harm pacified or healed. This is their front.
What would Ida have these physicians do? Indeed, they aren’t challenging the “war machine” that causes the harm, but they are responding to a significant need nonetheless. This response can’t reasonably be challenged ethically. Physicians don’t take the harm for granted, quite the opposite. They simply don’t theorize whether or not the harm should exist in the first place because that isn’t the need they are responding to. A reasonable argument could be made that these physicians, because they see and directly respond to the harm, are the best placed to effect further changes down the line; to the level of some ultimate cause. (This begs the question for Ida and others: What is the ultimate cause? You label it oppression, exploitation, or violence, but these are all reducible to other causes: economics, ideology, religion, biology. Which are in turn reducible yet again.)
The same is true in the animal rights movement. There are different fronts: some will respond directly to the harm, while others will challenge it indirectly by criticizing the inner workings of the machine. Ida seems to imply that Elaine is accomplishing her primary aim (i.e., working to prevent harm) because she instead shifts the focus to the causes of the effect. This, of course, assumes that Elaine’s method doesn’t go to this end as well, which is dubious at best. It is an empirical matter that seems to be the crux of many anti-”welfarist” groups. Ida needs to present evidence that Elaine’s campaigns don’t result in challenging the causes of the harm. I know Elaine would disagree forcefully.
Ida’s latter dispute with “triage hierarchies” reveals her quixotism. She writes,
In the “triage” framework, some forms of exploitation are seen as the “worst abuses” – such as battery cages or crates – some are written off completely – honey bees, for example – and others we are told can wait – like so-called “free-range” operations.
Triage is necessary because in reality we are dealing with finite resources. Physicians on the battlefield must construct hierarchies because externalities demand it. Otherwise the result would be ineffectiveness. Likewise in the animal rights movement. People who are located differently within the battle as it were have resources that can be exhausted. Therefore, they must necessarily address something specific and this will place it above others on the practical scale. Since Elaine is responding directly to harm it follows that she ought to evaluate different harms and challenge the most extreme.
Ida doesn’t seem to recognize this and I think it is because she relies on a philosophical slide. She assumes that Elaine’s practical decision is actually normative. That doesn’t follow. Elaine is not grouping beings on a normative scale of “importance,” she is addressing the amount of harm caused to these beings. There also isn’t a normative element that suggests other harms are acceptable. They are simply less severe than X and Y. Harm is the analytic focus. The normative claim is that harm is bad, which isn’t disputable because it seems to be the first premise of the animal rights (and human rights) movement. Elaine is forced to make practical evaluations given her position within the opposition movement. Again, she is responding to certain needs.
Ida ends with,
Social change starts with believing another world is possible. “Triage” belongs to the world we wish to leave behind.
I don’t think Elaine would disagree. I certainly don’t. However, the physician performing triage in war shouldn’t leave helpless, suffering, and dying people on the battlefield without aid because she prefers to re-imagine the world in which all this harm never happened in the first place. That isn’t the need she is responding to.
Crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox
Alex, I totally agree with your comments in this post. I have followed the article about ‘holistic veganism’ and agree with it in principle as an excellent goal and template. However, for all of our blather, the rabbit that was saved from vivisection, or the calf that was saved from becoming veal couldn’t care less about the ‘why’ of the mercy shown it. I like your point that we operate with limited resources (as the doctors in the example), and each of us do what we are able. The very last thing we need is for us few vegans and vegatarians to be slintered into innumerable camps like the many denominations of Christianity. For me the name of the game is “have mercy”. Why is a moot point I think.
Thanks, Alex. I always feel smarter after reading your posts.
Thank you Shannon, you’re very kind. I think this is an important topic because the discourse these days seems so wrapped-up in a false dichotomy: “welfarism”/abolitionism. It’s nonsense to a large extent.
Yeah, I don’t really engage with the welfarism/abolitionism thing myself. It’s just such a pointless distraction from the larger goal of mitigating as much harm as possible. Creating false divisions doesn’t help anyone.
Hi Alex,
Thanks for the post.
I notice that you have Gary Francione’s book, Rain Without Thunder listed for “Reading” on your page. You say that welfarism/abolitionism is a false dichotomy and is nonsense to a large extent. However, if Francione has made one thing clear, in that particular book and in his current work, it’s that there is a dichotomy there. Historically, animal welfare has not questioned the use of other animals by humans and has instead focused on treatment of other animals by humans. Animal Rights distinguished itself from animal welfare by rejecting the use of animals by humans altogether and focusing its time and energy on ending, or abolishing, animal exploitation. As Francione shows in his work, what was known as the animal rights movement has embraced the ideology of animal welfarism (which steers the course of the campaigns of the movement) but still claims to seek the end of the use of other animals by humans (new welfarism). That’s why we have PETA, Vegan Outreach, and other “AR” groups undermining animal rights and vegan principles by actually promoting the consumption of animal products if the suffering involved was “reduced” (which there is no proof of). The focus on reduced suffering and humane treatment of other animals and the focus on ending, or abolishing, the use of other animals altogether are not one and the same. They are contradictory and at odds with one another. Embracing welfarism is also antithetical to the aims of the Vegan movement, which has since it’s inception, promoted the end, or abolition, of animal exploitation (and this is clear from the work of Ida and some others). Indeed, that is how a nascent vegan movement in the 40’s and 50’s distinguished themselves from vegetarians and animal welfarists of their time.
My question is, how is welfarism/abolitionism (or welfarism/animals rights, or welfarism/veganism) a false dichotomy when their theories and approaches are totally different and contradictory to each other?
Harry,
Here’s Elaine’s comment from the thread at L.O.V.E. I think it nicely sums up what you are arguing:
“Given the responses, I don’t think that I made myself clear. What I mean by triage is simply prioritizing. For me, I prioritize habits over beliefs. I don’t care what you think (the animals don’t either); I care what you do.”
Chaz,
I think Francione’s argument is in large part a fallacy of definition because it fails to acknowledge the substantive theoretical and practical differences between animal welfare at its inception, and animal welfare today. This is evident when he sets-up a straw man of PETA’s argument, for example. PETA rejects the use of nonhuman animals, which you failed to admit in your comment: “Animals are not ours to A, B, C, D, and E.”
The most substantive question raised by Francione is the empirical matter: Do PETA’s methods a) actually reduce suffering and b) do they lead to “abolition”? Francione’s argument in this regard is fallacious as well because he assumes a causal pattern, but “abolition” isn’t brought about as though A causes B. Interestingly enough, I think Ida’s and L.O.V.E.’s critique is important here because it highlights the underlying exploitative and power relationships that are at play. It follows that between “A” and “B,” there are “M,” “N,” “O,” “P,” etc. It isn’t causal, and “new welfarism” doesn’t assume it is.
Now, the theoretical arguments might differ. One goal of Vegan Outreach, PETA, HSUS, etc. is to reduce suffering, whereas abolitionism foregrounds “use,” and the theoretical concept of “rights.” I think this is simply a misunderstanding, frankly, of morality. I wrote about it here:
http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/can_a_rights_violation_be_ethically_acceptable_even_required
“PETA rejects the use of nonhuman animals, which you failed to admit in your comment: “Animals are not ours to A, B, C, D, and E.”
Because you mention this, I’m wondering now if you’ve even read Francione’s work in any depth at all.
And no, I don’t fail to mention that PETA claims to promote the abolition of animal exploitation. Perhaps you should re-read my comment. This is what is has been termed “new welfarism” by Francione. A simple look at PETA’s campaigns and awards for the last several years will reveal that, although they often claim that they are all about ending animal exploitation, they are, at the same time, promoting slaughterhouse designers, chefs that use “less cruel” methods of exploiting and killing other animals (free range veal and no exploded duck livers but all kinds of other corpses and secretions), vegetarianism (read - non-veganism), etc. These promotions are all contradictory with aims of animal righs, abolitionism, and veganism, which was the point of my comment that you seem to ignore. Welfarism/abolitionism (or even welfarism/animal rights or welfarism/veganism) is a real dichotomy and that’s the reason folks came up with different theories and approaches from animal welfarism, because they noticed that, after 200 some years, it is not working and is only increasing and perpetuating animal exploitation. Therefore, if our aim is to end animal exploitation, promoting animal exploitation in any way will never achieve that end. There is no proof that regulating animal use or promoting “reduced suffering” exploitation will ever lead to the end of animal exploitation. Can you claim otherwise?
Chaz,
I argued that you failed to mention PETA’s explicit statements challenging your argument that PETA “promotes” exploiting nonhuman animals. PETA’s argument is that “Animals are not ours to…,” which belies your criticism that they “promote” eating animals.
Your examples, therefore, address the empirical matter that I argued was Francione’s best contribution: Do these proposals lead to realizing PETA’s goal of ending animal use, because, again, they argue that animals aren’t ours to use.
This is my primary rebuttal to Francione, whose work I know quite well. All of the examples you detailed in your comment assume that “abolitionism” is the only method to achieving the end of using nonhuman animals. I disagree because the evidence offered by Francione only makes sense if we accept his assumption that welfarism hasn’t changed in substance and practice. This was the fallacy of definition that I mentioned above. The welfarism of 200, 100, and 50 years ago is not the same as it is today.
Therefore, I think you’ve failed to show the dichotomy. As I understand it, the practices are different, but the end is the same. The question remains: What empirical evidence does Francione have that PETA’s methods won’t have the intended effect in the future? I think none that is convincing, so yes, I can claim otherwise.
I guess it comes down to whether one accepts what PETA *claims* or what they actually *do*. The jury is certainly in on this. They promote the exploitation of animals, pure and simple, no matter what they claim to want in the future. You even have a book listed in your “reading” section that goes into detail about this, and that was in ‘96. You can find other examples by visiting PETA’s award page on their site. Or by reading the many critics of their work. Too many to list here.
“The welfarism of 200, 100, and 50 years ago is not the same as it is today.”
Ok, Mr. Blanket Statements, where is your proof? The burden is on you now that you make that claim. The theory is still the same. Can you site even one example of a welfarist campaign in the last 50 years to regulate the use of animals that has resulted in the a)reduction of suffering and b)led to fewer animals being exploited? How about the last 10? 5? Please, I’d like to know.
Read Francione’s books and website (which it’s clear you have not in any depth) to see the “empirical evidence does Francione have that PETA’s methods won’t have the intended effect in the future”. Noone can predict the future. But one can easily review the past and view the present. PETA’s methods not only make a mockery out of the term animal rights (their listed philosopher on the subject, Singer, REJECTS the notion of rights altogether) from their ridiculous campaigns, they also are shown to be ineffective. The proof is that more animals are being used than ever before and constantly increases. Perhaps this is partly because, as I have stressed here again and again, they PROMOTE the exploitation of other animals (example - giving Whole Foods an award for their compassionate handling and murdering… whatever the hell…). This clearly undermines veganism and animals’ rights (except maybe the right to taste delicious) not to be used by humans.
Re-read my comments to see that I have shown there to be a real dichotomy between welfarism and abolitionism, in both theory and practice. Or you can just continue to ignore them. Your blog, your call.
One more time though - to promote animal exploitation of any kind (albeit “compassionate”, “humane”, exploitation) and to reject to use and exploitation of animals altogether for any purpose no matter how humane are conflicting approaches. How do you define dichotomy, Alex?
Chaz,
Francione’s argument is indeed detailed in various books, but as I’ve stated, the crux is fallacious. Francione assumes that PETA’s goal is analogous to that of the earliest animal protection societies, which isn’t accurate because their goal was “humane” treatment. Implicit in this goal is the assumption that use is acceptable (if humane).
PETA (and Compassion Over Killing, FARM Sanctuary, etc.) explicitly rejects this goal because they deny the assumption that nonhuman animals can be used. They are unequivocal on this point when they argue that, “Animals aren’t ours to use for….”
Therefore, on the theoretical merits of Francione’s critique, he fails because he straw man’s PETA’s argument. I’m afraid you are doing the same here.
Now, the reason why you are doing so is because you are shifting from the theoretical underpinnings I just detailed to the practical application in pursuit of the theoretical goal.
Francione’s great contribution is that he questions the latter, the efficacy of the practical application. You are doing the same thing, just in a slightly confused way, by pointing out the various examples where PETA supports animal exploitation as a means to ending animal exploitation. Francione says this isn’t effective, but you erroneously impose meaning on it: PETA doesn’t support their stated goal.
This leads to my second critique of Francione. He seems to assume, and I might be wrong, that PETA aims at a causal pattern between A and B: “welfarism” will cause “abolition.” That isn’t their design because the exploitation is always already there. Welfare campaigns address one manifestation of the problem. In so doing they deal with suffering, however, this doesn’t imply that they support other forms of exploitation. What I think it means is that they see reducing suffering as one front, whereas their other campaigns (video documentation, literature on health and environment, children’s literature, etc.) are attacking other fronts. This approach reflects an understanding of the pervasiveness of the problem.
The rest of your comment assumes what I challenged in the post I referred to above. It would be as though “rights” strictly speaking are the only method by which we can achieve the end we seek. I might agree, and PETA might as well, however, this is merely instrumental, a means to an end. Rights aren’t an end themselves.
Therefore, you criticizing Singer (as though it’s analogous to PETA, which doesn’t follow; Singer just laid out the problem of speciesism and the “argument from marginal cases” first) because he rejects rights is a moot point if his approach worked to achieve PETA’s end. I don’t think it does, and neither does PETA.
So again, the theoretical dichotomy isn’t there because the end is the same. The practice isn’t dichotomous because PETA would accept abolition in the cases that permit it, and Francione would certainly accept a net reduction in suffering today (as opposed to abolition) in specific cases, or else he would be a monster.
Alex, you accept what a group claims rather than what they actually do and you misunderstand the very definition of dichotomy. That’s fine.
If the goal of “humane” use wasn’t acceptable to said organizations why are they applauding and awarding many exploiters, individual and institutional, for using other animals to consume? They call these instances “victories”. I don’t know how this comes across to you, but to me that means the exploiters’ conduct is deemed acceptable. But, hey, at least they claim to seek an end to animal exploitation… That’s just not good, or honest, enough for me.
You confuse my being informed with being “confused” and it’s obvious to anyone who has read the literature that you are simply arguing to uphold your original argument that I have challenged. You try to tell me what my comments assume when that is your own assumption… Can you point to a comment of mine that shows that I’ve assumed what you said I have?
And where is the net reduction in suffering today? Who is really pursuing and achieving that? I believe Francione argues that the campaigns used by welfarists and new welfarists, which are informed by animal welfarist philosophy, only increase net suffering by making the public feel more comfortable with consuming animals. I’d like to see you challenge that argument because all I see is proof that net suffering is increasing through increased demand.
Remember, the burden is still on you.
Chaz,
What is “good enough for you” exactly?
Read carefully, I never argued that these campaigns have resulted in a net reduction of suffering, although ending the use of battery cages, and extending constitutional rights to nonhuman animals in Spain’s constitution might be cited as examples. I argued that welfare reform is aimed at reducing suffering as part of an overall strategy to realize the end of use, and therefore the dichotomy you cite is erroneous. Francione admits this: he simultaneously claims that welfare isn’t the same (i.e., seeking different ends) but that welfarism has never succeeded. Well, of course that’s true. Welfarism of the past and welfarism today sought qualitatively different ends.
Likewise with the theoretical underpinnings because the foundational premise is the same (i.e., harm). You assume that “rights” are the only means to achieving the theoretical end. If you didn’t, your criticism of Singer “for rejecting rights” would be incoherent. I challenged that in the article I linked to above. Please read it carefully.
Francione’s reasoning is clearly problematic. Increases in population, and the extension of global capitalism is directly related to increased demand. He is strained when he tries to link it to welfare reform.
What is “good enough” for me, in respect to this discussion, at a minimum, is consistency. Claiming to want an end to the exploitation of other animals and actively working with institutional and individual animal exploiters to help them exploit their animals more efficiently (or more “humanely”) and then referring to those instances as “victories” are not consistent positions to take. Furthermore, claiming “victory” in many of these situations certainly gives the public the perception that these exploiters’ conduct and exploitative practices are morally acceptable. This is problematic for those actually seeking an end to the exploitation of other animals when the most recognizable “animal rights” corporation is actively undermining the vegan principle of non exploitation and abolition of the exploitation of other animals, and more so, it’s problematic for the animals PETA claims to campaign for, because again, I don’t see any proof of them successfully reducing suffering or the amount of animals exploited.
And thanks for informing me what I assume is the only means for “achieving the theoretical end”. It seems that it is you who needs to read things (comments in this discussion) carefully.
Ciao for now.
http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/2008/
Proggy *Awards*
Most Progressive Chef
Wolfgang Puck
“Wolfgang Puck served meals to 10 million customers in 2006, from fine dining to casual eating to frozen pizzas to airplane-ready meals-to-go. So when this celebrity chef, a frequent guest on Good Morning America and NBC’s Las Vegas, says “No!” to cruelty to farmed animals, people listen.”
Wolfgang’s Eating, Loving, and Living (WELL) program promises environmentally sustainable, organic food and requires adherence to animal welfare standards. That means only cage-free eggs, veal from free-roaming calves, gestation-crate-free pork, and no foie gras.
Most Improved National Food Chain
Burger King
“This year, Burger King announced that it would buy a portion of eggs and pork from suppliers that don’t confine animals to battery cages or gestation crates and that it would favor suppliers that use controlled-atmosphere killing, the least inhumane slaughter practice. With more than 11,000 restaurants in the U.S. alone, Burger King has made a socially responsible decision that has had a ripple effect on other fast-food outlets and farms.”
You want to take the position that this is not dichotomous with seeking the abolition of animal exploitation (”welfarism/abolitionism”)? That’s fine.
Chaz, if you’re not going to read the comment you’re commenting on, what’s the point?
Alex and I don’t agree on this particular matter, but the point remains that the end goal of both sides remain the same: animals are not ours to use. You say that “I don’t see any proof of them successfully reducing suffering or the amount of animals exploited.” I don’t see any actual proof that their actions “[are] actively undermining the vegan principle of non exploitation and abolition of the exploitation of other animals.” The difficulty on both sides is proof - there are no real statistics, no facts or figures, to prove it either way. Alex and I agree that PETA’s actions may not (in fact, I would say probably not) actually reduce suffering in any meaningful way. However, that’s not an excuse to make stuff up and create a strawman argument. Gary Francione and Ingrid Newkirk come from the same place (indeed, they worked together for a time at the beginning of PETA) and I doubt you can really make a cogent argument that Newkirk doesn’t genuinely believe that veganism and abolition are the end goal of her efforts. She believes she has proof of her actions effectiveness the same way GF believes he has proof of their harm. Neither one of them has anything solid. So let’s take a step back, agree to disagree, and keep working on the end goal, shall we?
Jennie,
I posted my original comment because Alex stated that welfarism/abolitionism is a false dichotomy and I disagreed, based on the research I’ve done. My point is that there is indeed a dichotomy there and that many animal rights organizations, including PETA, embrace welfarism, which is undermining of the vegan ideal (http://www.ivu.org/history/world-forum/1951vegan.html). Given the examples I’ve posted above (and there a many many more) I think I’ve made my point that although PETA clams to seek abolition of animal exploitation as a goal, their campaigns often reinforce the idea that it’s acceptable for humans to use animals (textbook welfarist ideology). These two things are indeed in conflict with each other and work against each other for obvious reasons. Newkirk and others may very well indeed ideally want to see the end of animal exploitation (have I said otherwise?) but, from what I’ve seen, their actions often do nothing more than make people feel better about consuming animals, which will only increase animal exploitation. A great example is giving awards to Whole Foods for their treatment of animals. If you have a Whole Foods near you, please go see how much PETA-approved “humane” animal carcass and secretions they are selling.
http://blog.peta.org/archives/2007/07/whole_foods_ceo.php
http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/2004/winners.html
Best Animal-Friendly Retailer
“Whole Foods has consistently done more for animal welfare than any retailer in the industry, requiring that its producers adhere to strict standards. Recently, Whole Foods launched the Animal Compassion Foundation. John Mackey, the chair, CEO, and cofounder of Whole Foods Market, observed, “By creating the Foundation, Whole Foods Market is pioneering an entirely new way for people to relate to farm animals—with the animals’ welfare becoming the most important goal.” (NUFF SAID!)
“Best Animal-Friendly Retailer”? Really? More so than all vegan retailers that don’t rely on animal exploitation to make profits?
Instead of assuming I can’t make a cogent argument (you and Alex make a lot of assumptions BTW) about something perhaps you should re-read my comments, or just read them in the first place.
And I disagree. Read through Francione’s, and other critics of Peta, blogs and books to see that the critics have “something solid” about the ineffectiveness of welfarism (which PETA promotes - as shown above).
I think my comment on The Vegan Ideal, evidently made after this post was written, addresses your concerns.
What would Ida have these physicians do? Indeed, they aren’t challenging the “war machine” that causes the harm, [no, they perpetuate it] but they are responding to a significant need nonetheless. This response can’t reasonably be challenged ethically.
Plenty of people disagree and think that the ethical thing for a doctor who disagrees with war to do is to not participate in one. There are plenty of other avenues for saving lives, ones that do not prop up the system.
Which was the point–we need to step out of the narrow constructs set up by the system of exploitation and create real alternatives, not operate within the system, sacrificing some of our values thinking we are forwarding others.
The post here illustrates the defeatist view that Ida was critiquing. If we can’t even envision a world without battlefields (including animal rights as “battle”) and not take battlefields as the starting point for action, how can we expect to escape from it?
It is not “unrealistic” to radically shift our starting point for activism from working within the status quo to working from within our ideals.
But maybe I just didn’t understand this post because I don’t know what “normative” means.
Noah,
Your reasoning is fallacious in the same way that Ida’s is: you are imposing motives on these physicians. Doctors who alleviate suffering in Iraq aren’t perpetuating the war; they are simply alleviating suffering. This is a direct response to one set of needs. The conscientious objectors are responding to another.
The conscientious objector is essentially allowing suffering to continue by refusing to fulfill his duty as a physician. This doesn’t relate to “perpetuating the war” so much as letting people in front of him die. The construct that I’m working from is not “narrow” because it recognizes the complexity of the problem, while you seem to be forgetting the actual suffering humans in need of direct intervention.
If you re-read my article, you’ll see that I mention many times the multi-front character of these “battles.” Yours is a quixotic view because it assumes that addressing, directly, suffering that confronts the activists is “working within the system” and “defeatist.” That’s not an institutional response, it’s a human one. So, like Ida, your critique is deeply unrealistic and certainly immoral.